Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

3

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

AFCA Upholds Insurer's Decision on Claimant's Non-Disclosure 12 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) supported Auto & General's decision to deny a motor policyholder's claim after a crash. The decision stemmed from the policyholder's failure to disclose a driving-related good behaviour bond, despite his claims of a learning disability affecting his understanding of the policy's inquiries. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Cover Restaurant Arson Despite Director's Unrevealed Criminal Record 12 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori In a recent decision, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) directed insurer QBE to honour an arson claim for a restaurant, despite the owner's failure to disclose prior criminal convictions during the policy's inception. The restaurant, which operates from a leased location, suffered extensive damage due to an arson attack on August 2 of last year, halting its business operations. While the arsonist was apprehended, QBE initially denied the claim, citing non-disclosure of the director's criminal history. - read more

Insurance Sector Reports $1 Billion Profit Amidst Household Strain 11 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The insurance industry secured a net profit after tax of $1.11 billion in the March quarter, with major contributions from insurers at $990 million and reinsurers at $123 million, as revealed by the latest data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The insurance service result, a key indicator of underwriting success, reached $1.32 billion during this period, while investment returns added an impressive $1.18 billion. - read more

ASIC Accuses Choosi Pty Ltd of Misleading Insurance Comparison Practices 10 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has initiated legal proceedings against Choosi Pty Ltd, alleging deceptive practices in its insurance comparison service. The regulatory body charges that from July 2019 to June 2025, Choosi misrepresented its offerings, claiming to compare funeral and life insurance policies from multiple insurers while actually only comparing products from a single provider, Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd. - read more

Individual Disability Income Insurance Extends Profitable Streak into Fifth Quarter 10 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori Recent figures from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority reveal that individual disability income insurance (DII) recorded an underwriting profit of $231 million for the first quarter of 2025, continuing a five-quarter streak of profitability. This performance shows promising growth compared to the December 2023 quarter, which saw an $86 million loss. Although the latest profit is up from $138 million in the last quarter, it still falls short of the $419 million achieved a year before. - read more