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

Zurich Australia's New Income Protection for Women's Health

09 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

Zurich Australia has unveiled a pioneering income protection benefit tailored specifically for women's health conditions, including menopause and endometriosis. This initiative addresses the significant impact these conditions have on women's professional lives and financial stability. - read more

APRA's Renewed Efforts to Reform Income Protection Insurance

09 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has announced the resumption of its reforms targeting individual disability income insurance (IDII), commonly known as income protection insurance. This initiative aims to address the financial challenges that have plagued the industry, with insurers reporting losses exceeding $3.4 billion over the past five years. - read more

AFCA's Landmark Decision on Occupation Definitions in Income Protection Claims

09 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently delivered a pivotal ruling that clarifies the definition of 'occupation' within the context of income protection insurance claims. This decision arose from a dispute involving a policyholder whose income protection benefits were terminated after the insurer discovered he was listed as a director of a company while receiving payments. - read more

AustralianSuper Announces Reduction in Default Income Protection Cover

01 Apr 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

AIA Australia Introduces Enhancements to Priority Protection Insurance

01 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

AIA Australia has recently updated its Priority Protection life insurance suite, introducing changes designed to simplify discounts, enhance policy clarity, and support premium affordability. These enhancements, effective from 9 November 2025, reflect AIA's commitment to providing value-driven solutions for policyholders. - read more

Rising Insurance Costs Impact Australian Retirees' Financial Stability

01 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent reports have highlighted a concerning trend affecting Australian retirees: the escalating cost of insurance premiums is placing significant financial strain on individuals living on fixed incomes. Over the past five years, the average cost of home insurance in Australia has increased by 51%, according to analytics firm Finity. This surge in premiums is particularly burdensome for retirees who rely on limited superannuation funds and pensions to cover their living expenses. - read more

Click for more Insurance News