Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

3

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
Source: Paige Estritori

Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Insuregroup's Remarkable Growth Reflects Surge in Truck Insurance Demand

07 Dec 2025: Paige Estritori

Insuregroup, a specialist insurance brokerage serving Australia's transport and logistics sector, has recently announced a significant milestone: processing over 10,000 insurance policies since its inception, with a 25% increase in policy volume over the past year. This growth underscores the escalating demand for comprehensive truck insurance solutions tailored to the unique needs of Australian freight operators. - read more

Envest Group Unveils TLI Underwriting: A New Era for Heavy Motor Fleet Insurance

07 Dec 2025: Paige Estritori

Envest Group, a prominent player in Australia's insurance sector, has announced the launch of TLI Underwriting, a new agency dedicated to providing specialized insurance solutions for heavy motor fleet operators. This strategic move aims to address the unique challenges faced by larger transport businesses in Australia. - read more

ASIC Initiates Legal Proceedings Against QBE for Alleged Misleading Discount Practices

07 Dec 2025: Paige Estritori

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has commenced legal action against QBE Insurance, alleging that the insurer misled more than 500,000 customers regarding premium discounts over a five-year period. This development has significant implications for the Australian insurance industry, particularly for policyholders seeking transparency and fairness in premium calculations. - read more

Declining Construction Insurance Premiums: A Boon for Australian Tradies

07 Dec 2025: Paige Estritori

In 2025, Australia's construction insurance market has experienced a significant shift, with premiums decreasing across various lines due to intensified competition among insurers. This trend is particularly beneficial for tradespeople, commonly known as 'tradies,' who are witnessing more affordable coverage options. - read more

Upcoming Insurance Mandate: NSW Builders Must Act Before 2026 Deadline

07 Dec 2025: Paige Estritori

In a significant regulatory development, registered building practitioners in New South Wales (NSW) are now required to secure professional indemnity (PI) insurance by July 1, 2026. This mandate, stemming from the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2021, underscores the importance of comprehensive risk management for tradies operating within the state. - read more

Click for more Insurance News