Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.

The frustrated passenger incurred additional costs when his flight from Palermo to London was unexpectedly stopped because the crew had worked the maximum hours allowed by law. He expected full coverage for these expenses under his travel insurance policy.

However, Lloyd’s Australia, the insurer, denied the claim, stating that the travel policy’s clause on additional expenses and disruption coverage only applies to events such as strikes, riots, hijacks, civil unrest, adverse weather conditions, or accidents involving the mode of transport.

The claimant argued otherwise, insisting that the crew reaching its working hours limit was akin to industrial action such as strikes, implying that the insurer had a too narrow interpretation of the policy's disruption cover. He stated that the restriction on working hours is a precaution to prevent accidents, which aligns with the "spirit of the policy".

Yet, The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) did not accept this reasoning.

AFCA pointed out the scant information provided by the claimant which linked the flight cancellation directly to crew working hours being exceeded. They reinforced that this situation is distinct from a strike.

“A strike constitutes a deliberate refusal to work, whereas regulatory limits on work hours are a constraint and not a chosen action,” noted the AFCA's ombudsman. “Additionally, equating flight crew timing regulations with an accident scenario is not fitting, since the clause in question applies to actual incidents happening, not cancellations meant to forestall potential accidents.”

However, AFCA acknowledged a part of the travel policy which offers coverage for scenarios where a flight is delayed over six hours due to uncontrollable circumstances.

Under this provision, the insurer is required to compensate the complainant with the policy’s cap of $2000.

“Although the insurer claims that these circumstances are specifically excluded by the policy, they failed to indicate which exclusion they are relying on and provide justification for triggering it. Therefore, it is unconvincing that the insurer has adequately clarified its entitlement to decline or reduce the claim under this section,” AFCA concluded.

This case was originally reported by Insurance News Australia.

Published:Monday, 9th Sep 2024
Author: Paige Estritori

Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Mallee Hail Is a Sharp Reminder About Harvest-Time Insurance Gaps

10 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A damaging hailstorm across Victoria’s Mallee has turned a promising harvest into a difficult insurance and cash-flow test for affected grain growers. ABC Rural reported on 6 November 2026 that hail swept through districts including Birchip, Wycheproof and Quambatook, damaging thousands of hectares of wheat, barley, lentils, canola and other crops just as many paddocks were ready to harvest. - read more

Strata Storm Claim Ruling Puts Defect Exclusions in Focus

10 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has highlighted a difficult but common issue for strata communities: damage that happens during a storm is not always insured storm damage. The dispute, reported on 5 November 2026, involved an owners corporation claim for a collapsed parapet wall, with the insurer declining cover on the basis that defective design, materials or workmanship were the dominant cause rather than the weather event itself. - read more

Healthcare liability pressure puts clinic renewal evidence in focus

10 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Australian healthcare professional liability market update points to a sharper divide between general insurance market conditions and the experience of healthcare organisations arranging malpractice and professional liability cover. Lockton’s 1 November 2026 update says established insurers remain selective, claims inflation is affecting attachment points and underwriters are looking more closely at how clinical governance works in practice, not merely whether accreditation exists. - read more

WA Child Safety Changes Put Fitness Compliance in the Spotlight

10 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

Western Australia’s updated Working With Children Check laws are a timely reminder that fitness business risk is not limited to physical injury, equipment damage or venue incidents. The changes, in effect from 17 September 2026 and highlighted by AUSactive in October, mean certain adverse Working With Children outcomes from other Australian jurisdictions can now affect a person’s ability to work with children in WA. - read more

APRA AI remarks put risk data under the spotlight

10 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest comments on artificial intelligence in insurance have shifted attention from future technology to a practical issue for today’s small operators: the quality of the information insurers use to understand risk. For domestic and home service businesses, sharper underwriting could eventually mean more tailored pricing, but it may also make incomplete records, unclear operations or higher-risk work harder to overlook. - read more

Click for more Insurance News