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

Why Super Service Standards Matter for Your Income Protection

17 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

ASIC’s continuing focus on superannuation member services has put another practical issue in front of Australian workers: insurance inside super is not just about whether cover exists, but whether members can understand and use it when they need help. Recent regulatory attention on trustee administration, communication and claims support is a timely reminder for anyone relying on salary continuance or income protection benefits through their fund. - read more

Advice Changes Could Make Income Cover Easier to Understand

10 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s financial advice reform agenda has taken another important step, with industry attention turning to how simpler, more accessible guidance could help consumers make better decisions about insurance. For workers who rely on income insurance or salary continuance cover, the issue is more practical than political: many people hold cover they do not fully understand until illness or injury forces them to test it. - read more

Why Advice Reform Could Help Australians Understand Their Income Cover

03 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s financial advice reform debate has moved back into the spotlight, with life insurers and advice groups continuing to argue that many people need simpler, more affordable help to understand the insurance they already hold. For income insurance customers, the issue is practical: cover can look straightforward on a statement, but the detail often sits in definitions, waiting periods, offsets, exclusions and claim conditions. - read more

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

Click for more Insurance News