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
Source: Paige Estritori

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

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

New Legislation Prohibits Life Insurers from Using Genetic Test Results

08 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian government has enacted legislation prohibiting life insurers from using the results of genetic tests to refuse coverage or increase premiums. This landmark decision aims to eliminate genetic discrimination and encourage individuals to undergo potentially life-saving genetic testing without fear of financial repercussions. - read more

AIA Australia Introduces Enhancements to Priority Protection Life Insurance

28 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

AIA Australia has announced significant updates to its Priority Protection life insurance suite, effective from 9 November 2025. These enhancements are designed to simplify discounts, improve policy clarity, and support premium affordability for policyholders. - read more

Decline in Life and Income Protection Insurance Premiums Benefits Australians

28 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent data indicates a notable decline in life and income protection insurance premiums across Australia, providing consumers with more affordable coverage options. According to the latest Direct Life Insurance Report from Rainmaker Information, direct life premiums have decreased by 7% since 2024. Similarly, direct income protection premiums have seen significant reductions, with average premiums for waiting periods of 30 days and 90 days decreasing by 12% and 13%, respectively. - read more

AustralianSuper Announces Reduction in Default Income Protection Cover

20 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

AustralianSuper, one of Australia's largest superannuation funds, has announced a significant change to its default income protection insurance. Effective from 28 February 2026, the fund will reduce the default income protection cover to $1,000 per month. This adjustment aims to align insurance coverage with members' actual income levels and prevent over-insurance, which can erode retirement savings. - read more

APRA Postpones Changes to Individual Disability Income Insurance Policy Terms

20 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has announced a suspension of the planned changes to individual disability income insurance (IDII) policy contract terms. Originally set to take effect from 1 October 2022, the implementation has been deferred for at least two years, providing insurers and policyholders additional time to adapt to the forthcoming regulations. - read more

AFCA Upholds Policyholder's Income Protection Benefits Against Zurich

12 Feb 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled against Zurich Insurance, instructing the insurer to maintain the current income protection benefits for a policyholder after an 11-year delay in proposing a reduction. This decision underscores the critical importance of timely and transparent communication between insurers and their clients. - read more

Click for more Insurance News