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

NRMA's Departure from Farm Insurance: What It Means for Australian Farmers

16 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

In a significant shift within the Australian insurance landscape, NRMA has announced its withdrawal from the farm insurance market, ceasing the sale of new policies as of July 1, 2025. This decision affects both Hobby Farm Insurance and Rural Farm Insurance offerings, leaving many farmers in search of alternative coverage options to safeguard their livelihoods. - read more

New Partnership Strengthens Risk Management in Australia's Protected Cropping Sector

16 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Protected Cropping Australia (PCA) and Achmea Farm Insurance have announced a strategic partnership aimed at bolstering risk mitigation and resilience within Australia's protected cropping sector. This collaboration seeks to empower growers by providing tailored insurance solutions and promoting best practices in risk management. - read more

ABARES Report Highlights Insurance as a Key Tool for Managing Agricultural Risks

16 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) has released a comprehensive report examining the role of insurance as a risk management tool for Australian farmers. The report emphasises that while insurance cannot protect against inevitable events like climate change, it can be instrumental in managing the variability and unpredictability inherent in farming. - read more

ABARES Forecasts Significant Decline in Australian Farm Profits

09 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) has released a report forecasting a substantial decline in broadacre farm profits, projecting a 70% decrease to approximately $65,000 per farm. This downturn is attributed to escalating input costs and persistent drought conditions affecting various regions. - read more

Low Adoption of Cyber Insurance Among Australian Farmers

09 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent research from WFI Insurance reveals that only 25% of Australian farmers are considering cyber insurance, despite approximately 80% of farms now utilising some form of agricultural technology (agri-tech). This disparity highlights a significant vulnerability within the sector, as increased digitisation exposes farms to potential cyber threats. - read more

Integrating Sustainability into Farm Risk Management Strategies

09 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

In the face of increasing climate variability, Australian agriculture is shifting its approach by integrating sustainability into core risk management strategies. This evolution reflects a broader recognition that environmental stewardship is intrinsically linked to the resilience and long-term viability of farming operations. - read more

Click for more Insurance News