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

Australian Insurers Advocate for Stronger Consumer Protection Laws

02 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has expressed strong support for the proposed Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. This legislation seeks to introduce a general prohibition on unfair trading practices within Australian Consumer Law, thereby enhancing regulatory powers to address predatory operators in the insurance industry. - read more

APRA Takes Action Against Unjustified Commercial Auto Insurance Premium Increases

02 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has implemented emergency measures to address significant concerns within the commercial auto insurance sector. In response to widespread industry protests over substantial premium increases, APRA has introduced regulations aimed at safeguarding transport operators from financial hardship. - read more

Significant Decline in Australian Commercial Insurance Rates Observed

02 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent data from Marsh Risk's Global Insurance Market Index indicates a substantial decline in Australian commercial insurance rates. In the fourth quarter of 2025, rates fell by 12%, representing the most significant drop among the eight regions monitored by the index. This trend continues the downward trajectory observed since early 2024. - read more

Regulatory Review of Life Insurance Premium Practices in Australia

01 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

In June 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) provided an update on their joint review of life insurance premium practices. This initiative was prompted by concerns over frequent and substantial premium increases that may not align with policy terms or policyholder expectations. - read more

Ongoing Deficiencies in Direct Life Insurance Sales Practices Identified by ASIC

01 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

In August 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released findings from a review of direct life insurance sales practices, uncovering persistent deficiencies despite previous regulatory interventions. - read more

Click for more Insurance News