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

Inquiry Delay Keeps Tradie Insurance Pressures in View

28 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

A federal parliamentary inquiry into small business insurance has pushed back its reporting date from 27 October 2026 to 26 February 2027, extending the wait for recommendations on issues that directly affect many Australian trade businesses. The inquiry is examining the provision, regulation and pricing of modern insurance products for small businesses and not-for-profits, including public liability, professional indemnity, cyber cover and business interruption. - read more

Insurance Inquiry Delay Keeps Tradie Cover Concerns in Focus

28 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

A federal parliamentary inquiry into small business insurance has reportedly pushed back its final report from 27 October 2026 to 26 February 2027, extending the wait for recommendations on insurance affordability, availability and regulation. For Australian tradies and small trade businesses, the delay matters because the inquiry is examining the types of cover many operators rely on daily, including public liability, professional indemnity, cyber risk and business interruption insurance. - read more

Broker Code Overhaul Puts Renewals and Disclosure in Focus

28 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Insurance Brokers Code of Practice has been launched by the National Insurance Brokers Association, putting clearer disclosure, renewal contact and client support standards on the agenda for Australian businesses that use brokers to arrange cover. The 2027 Code takes effect on 1 January 2027 and is designed to set out, in plainer language, what clients should be able to expect from subscribing insurance brokers. - read more

Income Protection Complaints Remain a Key Life Insurance Pressure Point

28 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s latest annual review has put income protection insurance back in focus, with the product again attracting the highest number of life insurance complaints in 2025-26. The figures are a useful reminder that the real value of cover is tested not at purchase, but when illness or injury interrupts a person’s capacity to earn. - read more

Farm Flood Dispute Shows the Cost of Delayed Claims Handling

28 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority determination involving a flooded farmhouse has put claims handling back under the microscope for rural policyholders, after the insurer was ordered to pay almost $432,000 across building repairs, additional temporary accommodation, professional costs and compensation for non-financial loss. The decision, dated 27 August 2026 and reported by Insurance News on 15 October 2026, is a useful reminder that the practical aftermath of a farm flood can extend well beyond the first clean-up. - read more

Click for more Insurance News