Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

3

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
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Regulatory Bodies Demand Clarity on Duration-Based Insurance Premiums 06 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori Australia’s leading financial regulators, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), have raised concerns regarding the practice of duration-based pricing in life insurance products. They have emphasised the need for insurers to improve transparency, ensuring that consumers are fully informed about the long-term costs associated with initial premium discounts. - read more

Young Driver Left Uncovered Due to Policy Misstep 05 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A policyholder faces a denied claim after inadvertently excluding his newly licensed 21-year-old son from his car insurance policy, highlighting a common oversight in age-specific exclusions. Following a collision involving his son, who recently earned his licence, Hollard Insurance declined the claim based on policy terms that excluded drivers under 25, unless accompanied by a qualified adult. - read more

NSW Floods Highlight Critical Insurability Crisis 05 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori Recently, New South Wales has been severely affected by major floods, with damages to around 10,000 homes and businesses. The Insurance Council of Australia has already received over 6,000 claims from the Mid North Coast and Hunter regions, while countless families face displacement as their homes become uninhabitable. - read more

Ride-Share Driver Prevails in Insurance Dispute Over Vehicle Use 04 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A ride-share driver recently won a significant claim dispute against an insurer that initially denied his claim following a traffic accident. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) sided with the driver, determining that Auto & General could not prove he misrepresented his vehicle use when purchasing his insurance policy. - read more

Streamlining Life Insurance: New Digital Questionnaire Initiative Launched 04 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori In a groundbreaking development for the Australian life insurance sector, a new digital initiative promises to simplify the process of providing medical information for life insurance applications. The collaboration between Acenda, formerly known as MLC Life, and EQ Pathology introduces “smart” digital questionnaires to streamline data collection. - read more