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

New claims data sharpens focus on income protection details

27 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA's latest life insurance claims and disputes statistics have again put the practical side of personal cover in front of Australian workers. While headline numbers often focus on the overall performance of life insurers, the data is especially relevant for anyone relying on income protection insurance or salary continuance cover to keep household cash flow steady after illness or injury. - read more

Why Claim Clarity Matters More Than Ever for Income Insurance

13 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent complaints reporting from Australia's financial dispute resolution system has put a practical issue back in front of workers: the value of income insurance is not only in the monthly benefit promised, but in how clearly a policy works when a claim is made. - read more

What Genetic Testing Reform Could Mean for Income Protection Applicants

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s move to restrict the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting is an important development for people who have been hesitant to explore personal cover. While the reform is usually discussed in relation to life insurance, it also matters for income insurance because many retail policies sit within the broader life insurance framework. - read more

What a More Stable Income Protection Market Means for Your Pay Packet

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent APRA life insurance performance data has given the income protection sector a cautiously positive signal: the market appears to be moving through a more stable phase after several years of product redesign, pricing pressure and closer regulatory attention. For consumers, the important point is not that cover has suddenly become simple, but that insurer sustainability and claim reliability remain central to the value of any policy. - read more

Why the Simple Advice Push Matters for Your Cover

22 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s life insurance sector has renewed its push for consumers to receive simpler help with the cover they already hold, particularly through superannuation. The Council of Australian Life Insurers has again argued that many people need clearer, more accessible guidance about insurance inside super, including death, disability and, where available, income protection insurance. - read more

Click for more Insurance News