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

Chronic Illness Risk Puts Fresh Focus on Income Insurance

15 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New research highlighted by Zurich has put a timely spotlight on a major challenge for Australian workers: people are living longer, but many are also spending more of those years managing chronic health conditions. For households that rely on a regular wage, salary, business income or contract work, this trend reinforces why income insurance is not just a product for sudden accidents. - read more

Income Protection Demand Rises as Australians Revisit Personal Cover

24 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

New market data points to a meaningful lift in Australians taking out individual income protection insurance, suggesting more households are reassessing how they would manage financially if illness or injury interrupted their pay. - read more

HESTA Announces Significant Insurance Fee Reductions and Enhanced Member Protections

26 May 2026: Paige Estritori

HESTA, a prominent Australian superannuation fund, has unveiled a series of changes aimed at providing more accessible and affordable insurance coverage for its members. Effective from 1 July 2026, these adjustments include an average 12% reduction in insurance fees across all cover types, encompassing death, total and permanent disablement (TPD), and income protection cover. - read more

Acenda Life Introduces Significant Updates to Income Protection Policies

26 May 2026: Paige Estritori

Acenda Life has recently implemented a series of updates to its Retail Life Insurance portfolio, effective from 11 April 2026. These changes are designed to provide greater flexibility and accessibility for Australians seeking income protection insurance, addressing common concerns about policy limitations and entry age restrictions. - read more

AFCA Backs Insurer in Income Protection Offset Case

26 May 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of Nippon Life Insurance in a dispute concerning income protection (IP) offsets, confirming an overpayment of nearly $18,000 and supporting the insurer's decision to suspend benefits during the reconciliation of compulsory third party (CTP) income. - read more

Click for more Insurance News