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

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

Claims Delays Put Life Insurance Service Standards in Focus

24 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent sanction against an unnamed life insurer has put claims handling back under the spotlight, particularly for Australians who rely on personal insurance as a financial safety net. The Life Insurance Code Compliance Committee found that the insurer failed to request required information from claimants at the earliest available opportunity, contributing to significant delays for some customers waiting on claim decisions. - read more

Hostplus and MetLife Extend Partnership to Strengthen Member Insurance Offerings

03 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Hostplus, a leading Australian superannuation fund, has announced the extension of its group insurance partnership with MetLife Australia until June 2028. This strategic move aims to enhance the insurance benefits available to Hostplus members, reflecting the fund's commitment to providing comprehensive and cost-effective coverage. - read more

Rising Mental Health Claims Lead to Surge in Income Support Access

27 May 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent data reveals a concerning trend: over 8 million Australians are now accessing some form of income support, marking an increase of approximately 2 million individuals over the past decade. This surge is predominantly driven by a rise in mental health-related claims, underscoring the pressing need for comprehensive mental health support and effective income protection strategies. - read more

Acenda Life Introduces Higher Coverage Limits in Income Protection Policies

27 May 2026: Paige Estritori

Acenda Life has recently implemented a series of updates to its Retail Life Insurance portfolio, effective from 11 April 2026. These changes are designed to provide greater flexibility and accessibility for Australians seeking income protection insurance, addressing common concerns about policy limitations and entry age restrictions. - read more

Click for more Insurance News