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

Potential AI Errors: A Looming Challenge for Insurers 24 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori Industry experts are signaling a potential risk for underwriters due to claims arising from inaccuracies produced by artificial intelligence (AI), likening it to the 'silent cyber' phenomenon of the past. Clyde & Co partner, Darryl Smith, highlights the issue, emphasizing how AI inaccuracies could impact various insurance policies, sometimes without immediate detection. - read more

AFCA Supports RAA Insurance in Vehicle Location Dispute 24 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori An insurance dispute over the location of a vehicle culminated in the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) backing RAA Insurance in their decision to deny a claim. The issue surrounded the policyholder's claim that her son’s car was stored in South Australia, while the vehicle was allegedly used and registered in Victoria. - read more

AFCA Sides with Homeowners in Landmark Insurance Dispute Over Property Cracks 22 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori Homeowners recently secured a favourable ruling against their insurer after a water leak led to significant structural damage. After large cracks emerged on their property, Youi initially denied the insurance claim, attributing the damage to pre-existing issues like earth movement and tree root intrusion, both of which are exclusions in their policy. - read more

Climate Change Threatens Australian Suburbs with Unaffordable Insurance 17 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori More than 4% of Australian properties are currently facing heightened risks from natural hazards exacerbated by climate change, rendering insurance coverage often unaffordable or unavailable, according to recent findings by Climate Valuation. An analysis of over 15 million properties across 15,000 suburbs also highlights that an additional 10% are at moderate risk from disasters such as floods, bushfires, tropical cyclones, coastal inundation, and extreme winds. - read more

Insurer Rejects Claim Over Diesel Fluid Mix-Up 16 Apr 2025: Paige Estritori A contentious insurance claim has ended unfavourably for a motor policyholder after her husband mistakenly poured diesel exhaust fluid into her car's fuel tank. Although the policyholder initially received assurances from a Suncorp representative that the use of AdBlue fluid wouldn't be considered improper fuelling – supposedly an excluded scenario under her policy – the claim was later denied. This decision has sparked debate around policy definitions and customer service communication. - read more