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

Navigating Rising Premiums and Cybersecurity Challenges in Australia's Insurance Sector

07 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

As 2026 unfolds, Australian insurers are grappling with significant challenges that threaten both their operational stability and the affordability of coverage for policyholders. Key among these are the escalating costs of premiums and the persistent threat of cyber incidents. - read more

Bridging the Gap: Enhancing AI and Cyber Risk Preparedness in Australia's Insurance Industry

07 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent studies have revealed that Australian insurers are trailing their global counterparts in preparedness for artificial intelligence (AI) and cyber risks. This lag poses significant challenges to the industry's resilience and competitiveness. - read more

The Financial Toll of Climate Change on Australian Properties and Insurance

07 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

Climate change is exerting a profound impact on Australia's property market and insurance industry. Recent data indicates that increased flood risks have led to a substantial devaluation of properties in vulnerable areas, with some regions experiencing value declines of up to 10%. - read more

ASIC Takes Legal Action Against Budget Direct for Misleading Discounts

30 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has initiated legal proceedings against Auto & General, the parent company of Budget Direct, alleging that the insurer engaged in misleading advertising practices concerning policy discounts. This action underscores the regulator's commitment to ensuring transparency and fairness within the Australian insurance industry. - read more

EML Group's Strategic Acquisition of Guild Insurance

30 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

In a significant move within the Australian insurance sector, EML Group has acquired a majority stake in Guild Insurance. This strategic partnership is designed to unlock growth opportunities and accelerate the development of technology and artificial intelligence within the insurance landscape. - read more

Click for more Insurance News