A traveller whose flight was cancelled when airline crew had to stop working will receive only partial reimbursement for his losses under a complaints authority ruling.

The complainant said he incurred additional costs when his flight from Palermo to London was cancelled because of “crew issues”.

Lloyd’s Australia declined his claim, saying his travel policy’s additional expenses and journey disruption cover was triggered only by events including strike, riot, hijack, civil unrest, weather or an accident affecting the mode of transport.

The claimant said the cancellation related to the flight crew exceeding their legal working hours, which “bears a close resemblance to industrial action like a strike”. He argued the insurer “narrowly interpreted” the policy’s disruption clause, and that staff hours were limited to avoid potential accidents and “the spirit of the policy” should have covered the cancellation. 

But the Australian Financial Complaints Authority does not accept the policy should have responded to the “crew issues”.

It questions the limited information provided by the claimant to show the flight was cancelled because staff had exceeded their working hours, and says the event differs from a worker strike.

“A strike is a refusal or decision to stop work, whereas any limit imposed on working hours is not a refusal or decision to work, it is a restriction,” AFCA’s ombudsman said. 

“I also am not persuaded that crew members being unable to fly due to hours worked should be considered in a similar way to an ‘accident involving your mode of transport’. This is because the term in the insuring clause is referring to an event that happened, rather than, as the complainant contends, cancelling it to avoid a possible accident.” 

However, AFCA says the travel policy covered incidents in which a flight is delayed for more than six hours in circumstances beyond the claimant’s control. 

It requires the insurer to cover the complainant for the maximum $2000 benefit under this clause. 

“I acknowledge the insurer also says the circumstances of the loss are expressly excluded by the policy, [but] in relation to this section of the policy the insurer did not outline which exclusion is it seeking to rely on and why the exclusion has been triggered. Given this, I am not persuaded the insurer has outlined it is entitled to decline or reduce the claim under this section.” 

Click here for the ruling.