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

Why Firmer Cattle Prices Should Trigger an Insurance Check

15 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent rural market reporting has pointed to firmer cattle values across parts of eastern Australia, with improved seasonal confidence, restocker demand and tighter supply helping support prices in a number of saleyards. For producers, stronger prices are welcome after a period of difficult seasonal and cost pressures. But there is also a quieter insurance issue sitting behind the market lift: if livestock values rise, the financial exposure carried by the farm may rise with them. - read more

Softer premiums do not remove the need for sharper cover checks

15 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent commercial insurance market commentary points to a more favourable pricing environment for many Australian business buyers, with competition returning in some lines after several years of tougher renewal conditions. For consultants, this is welcome news, but it should not be mistaken for a signal that professional risk has become simple or low-cost to insure. - read more

Why Cyber Insurance Reviews Are Becoming More Urgent

15 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Cyber insurance has moved from a specialist add-on to a mainstream business risk issue. Recent industry commentary points to a more selective market: insurers are examining security controls, data handling and outsourced technology dependencies before offering terms. For many Australian small businesses, that means a renewal is no longer just a price conversation. It is a test of whether the business can show how it prevents, detects and recovers from an incident. - read more

Affordability Pressure Is Changing the Risk Picture for Landlords

15 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent rental market commentary is again highlighting a practical issue for Australian landlords: tenant affordability is becoming a stronger force in how rental demand behaves. While many areas remain tight by historical standards, rising living costs and stretched household budgets are changing what renters can absorb, where they look, and how long they stay. - read more

What Electric Heavy Vehicles Mean for Truck Insurance

10 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent transport and fleet industry coverage continues to point to a steady increase in electric and low-emission heavy vehicles across Australian logistics operations. For many operators, the attraction is clear: quieter vehicles, lower tailpipe emissions, potential fuel savings and stronger alignment with customer sustainability targets. But the insurance conversation is now becoming more detailed than simply replacing a diesel truck with an electric one. - read more

Click for more Insurance News