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

Claims Handling Scrutiny Offers Income Protection Lessons

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent industry attention on insurance claims handling has put a practical issue back in front of Australian households: a policy is only as valuable as the support it provides when a claim is made. For income protection insurance, that moment often arrives during illness, injury, stress and reduced cash flow, so clear communication and timely assessment matter enormously. - read more

New APRA Data Reinforces the Need to Review Income Protection Cover

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest life insurance performance data has put income protection back under the spotlight, with disability income products continuing to be one of the more closely watched areas of the sector. While the broader life insurance industry has been showing signs of improved stability, the update reinforces that policies designed to replace income after illness or injury remain sensitive to claims experience, pricing, and changing work and health trends. - read more

AFCA Decision Highlights Limits on Recovering Income Protection Payments

22 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has offered an important reminder for anyone relying on income protection insurance through work or super: once benefits have been paid, an insurer generally needs a strong and clearly evidenced basis before asking for that money back. - read more

Why Commission Earners Should Check Their Income Protection Wording

15 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put an important issue in focus for sales staff, recruiters, account managers and other workers whose income depends partly on commission. The dispute involved a policyholder covered under an employer’s group income protection arrangement with MetLife. After a work-related mental health injury, he claimed on the policy, but his commission earnings were left out when his pre-disability income was calculated. - read more

What the Life Code Review Could Mean for Mental Health Claims

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest review of the Life Insurance Code of Practice has put mental health cover at the centre of the national conversation about life insurance, disability insurance and income protection. Independent reviewer Peter Kell has completed his final report, outlining 85 recommendations aimed at improving customer protections, claims handling, communication, vulnerability support and the enforceability of the Code. - read more

Cancer Claim Decision Shows Why Policy Wording Matters

01 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has underlined a point that is easy to overlook when buying personal insurance: a serious diagnosis does not always mean a policy benefit will be payable. The ruling, reported on 29 June 2026, involved a claimant who sought benefits after being diagnosed with high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Although the illness was serious and required treatment, AFCA found the insurer was entitled to rely on the specific wording of the policy. - read more

Click for more Insurance News