The hoax bomb threats that have disrupted flights across Europe this week are leaving airlines, and in some cases passengers, with costs that insurance is unlikely to cover.
More than a dozen flights were targeted on Thursday, the second wave in a week, taking the total to more than 20. They included an Aer Lingus flight from Dublin to Rome that was intercepted by French fighter jets and diverted to Normandy. No explosives have been found on any aircraft, and the UK’s transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, described the incidents as malicious hoaxes.
Each threat an airline acts on brings a diversion or halted departure, a full search, rebooked passengers, crews running out of hours, and sometimes a replacement aircraft. Aviation security expert Philip Baum, a visiting professor at Coventry University, has said diverting a flight for a bomb threat or unruly passenger can cost up to $250,000. He said costs this week may be lower because most flights were short-haul, with less chance of overnight delays.
Most of that cost is likely to stay with the airlines. Aviation hull and liability policies respond to physical damage and third-party injury, and a hoax causes neither. Industry reporting this week has noted that insurance typically doesn’t cover these commercial losses from operational disruption.
As Insurance Business reported on Wednesday, how the threats are classified determines which policies might respond. One aviation security analyst suggested they could reflect state-backed hybrid warfare, which would bring war risk and terrorism cover into focus.
Two things limit that. First, war and terrorism cover generally responds to an actual act causing loss, rather than a threat that turns out to be false. Second, the latest evidence points away from a state actor. Threats have reportedly been sent in pairs to unmonitored email inboxes, under the name of an anti-feminist group. Investigators have not confirmed who is responsible, and the European Union said it was not yet clear whether the incidents were linked.
The classification question still matters for future events. IB’s coverage of the RAF Fairford arrests showed how war exclusions and terrorism definitions can leave gaps when an incident is hard to categorise.
For passengers, security threats are generally treated as extraordinary circumstances under EU and UK flight compensation rules, so fixed compensation is usually not payable. Airlines must still provide care, such as meals and accommodation, during long delays, and arrange transfers when a flight is diverted to a different airport serving the same region.
Travel insurance may not fill the gaps. Many policies exclude claims arising from acts or threats of terrorism, which can cover disruption from a bomb threat even when no explosives are found. Others offer delay and missed connection cover, but terms vary widely.
For brokers with aviation clients, the week has exposed a clear gap between disruption costs and insured loss. Airlines, airports and aviation service companies should check whether their programmes include any cover for threat response, diversion or business interruption without physical damage. Brokers should also check how malicious act, war and terrorism definitions treat threats rather than actual attacks.
For brokers selling travel insurance, the key issue is the wording of terrorism exclusions. Policies that exclude threats of terrorism, not just acts, may leave customers without cover for missed connections and extra accommodation. Brokers should explain this to customers, and corporate clients with staff travelling in Europe should review how business travel policies treat security-related delays.
