Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

3

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
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ASIC Initiates Legal Proceedings Against RACQ Insurance for Misleading Premium Information

19 Oct 2025: Paige Estritori

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has commenced Federal Court proceedings against RACQ Insurance, a subsidiary of Insurance Australia Group (IAG), alleging that the insurer misled over 570,000 customers through deceptive premium comparison pricing in renewal notices issued between September 2019 and December 2024. - read more

Rising Travel Insurance Claims Among Australians Visiting Thailand

19 Oct 2025: Paige Estritori

Southern Cross Travel Insurance (SCTI) has reported a significant 43% increase in emergency assistance cases involving Australian travellers in Thailand compared to the previous year. This surge underscores the importance of comprehensive travel insurance for those venturing abroad. - read more

Open Insurance Unveils Innovative AI-Powered Travel Insurance for Australians

19 Oct 2025: Paige Estritori

Open Insurance, the parent company of the AI-driven brand Huddle, has launched a new travel insurance product tailored for the Australian market. This marks the company's return to offering travel insurance locally since the COVID-19 pandemic. - read more

Allianz Australia Penalised for Misleading Travel Insurance Information

11 Oct 2025: Paige Estritori

In a significant ruling, Allianz Australia Insurance and its subsidiary, AWP Australia, have been fined a total of $16.8 million for providing misleading information about their travel insurance products. The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that between 2016 and 2018, the companies misrepresented the extent of coverage available to consumers, leading to potential misunderstandings about policy benefits. - read more

Surge in Bali Travel Among Australians Leads to Increased Insurance Claims

11 Oct 2025: Paige Estritori

The allure of Bali continues to captivate Australian travellers, with a notable 43% increase in travel insurance policies purchased for the destination since the 2022/23 summer season. This surge has corresponded with a 50% rise in related insurance claims, now accounting for 16% of all claims submitted to Southern Cross Travel Insurance (SCTI) in 2024. - read more

Click for more Insurance News