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

ASIC Service Review Keeps Income Protection Basics in Focus

04 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

ASIC’s 2026-27 life insurance priorities have put a practical issue back in front of income protection customers: the basic administration behind a policy can matter just as much as the headline level of cover. In its latest sector letter to life insurer boards and executives, the regulator says it is continuing a review into service issues in life insurance, with a report expected in the third quarter of 2026-27. - read more

Income Protection Complaints Remain a Key Life Insurance Pressure Point

28 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s latest annual review has put income protection insurance back in focus, with the product again attracting the highest number of life insurance complaints in 2025-26. The figures are a useful reminder that the real value of cover is tested not at purchase, but when illness or injury interrupts a person’s capacity to earn. - read more

What Genetic Testing Reform Could Mean for Income Protection

16 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Federal moves to restrict the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting have important implications for Australians who are thinking about income protection cover. The reform is designed to reduce the fear that taking a medically useful genetic test could later make it harder, more expensive or impossible to obtain personal insurance. - read more

Why Premium Differences Matter When Choosing Income Protection

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent income protection cost commentary has put a practical issue back in front of Australian workers: two policies that appear similar at first glance can carry very different long-term costs. For people relying on their income to meet mortgage repayments, rent, school fees, business expenses or family commitments, the premium is important, but it should not be viewed in isolation. - read more

ASIC Claims Scrutiny Highlights What Income Protection Customers Should Check

02 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent regulatory attention on life insurance claims handling has again highlighted a practical issue for Australians who rely on income protection insurance: the value of cover is tested most clearly when a person is too unwell or injured to keep earning. While the industry has been working to improve service standards, the latest scrutiny reinforces that delays, unclear requests for information and poor communication can make an already stressful period harder for claimants. - read more

Latest APRA Figures Keep Income Protection Under the Spotlight

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest life insurance performance data has again highlighted why income protection remains one of the most closely watched parts of the Australian insurance market. While the broader life insurance sector has continued to show signs of improved stability, disability income products remain sensitive to claims trends, pricing assumptions and the length of time people stay off work after illness or injury. - read more

Click for more Insurance News