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 Cyclone Alfred Recovery Teaches Farmers About Insurance

16 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent industry attention on insurance claims linked to ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred is a timely reminder that severe weather losses rarely stop at damaged buildings. For farms across storm and flood-exposed regions, the real cost of an event can include cut access roads, damaged fencing, spoiled fodder, machinery downtime, livestock movement issues and weeks of operational disruption. - read more

Seasonal Bushfire Risk Puts Farm Cover Back in the Spotlight

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s latest seasonal bushfire outlook is a practical reminder that fire risk is not confined to the height of summer. For many farms, the exposure begins well before a catastrophic fire day is declared, as grass growth, drying winds, stored fodder, machinery movement and access limitations combine to create a more complex risk profile than a standard rural home policy can address. - read more

Why Repair Bottlenecks Matter for Farm Insurance Claims

02 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh industry concern about repair delays after severe weather is highly relevant for Australian farms, where a damaged shed, washed-out access track or unavailable part can quickly interrupt day-to-day operations. While the wider insurance discussion often focuses on homes and commercial buildings, the same pressure points can be even more complex on rural properties because assets are spread out, specialist equipment is involved and local contractor availability may be limited. - read more

Insurance Tax Debate Puts Farm Premiums Back in Focus

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Renewed industry pressure to reduce insurance taxes has put affordability back in the spotlight for rural and regional Australia. The latest debate centres on the extra costs added to insurance through state-based duties, levies and other charges, which can make already expensive cover harder to maintain for households and businesses exposed to flood, bushfire, storm and cyclone risk. - read more

Why Claims Disputes Should Prompt a Farm Insurance Review

19 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent complaints data from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has again highlighted a pressure point that matters to rural Australia: insurance claims can become difficult when expectations, policy wording and evidence do not line up. While the figures cover the wider insurance market rather than farms alone, the themes are highly relevant for agricultural businesses dealing with storm damage, fire losses, machinery failures, fencing repairs or interrupted operations. - read more

Wetter Weather Forecast Puts Rural Cover Under the Microscope

12 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia's latest seasonal weather signals have again pushed rainfall risk into the foreground for rural and regional businesses. While conditions vary sharply between districts, a wetter outlook for parts of the country is a useful reminder that risk planning should not wait until paddocks are already saturated, creek crossings are cut or machinery is bogged at harvest. - read more

Click for more Insurance News