Broker Not Accountable for Passing on Insurer's Instructions
Broker Not Accountable for Passing on Insurer's Instructions
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.
An Australian homeowner's effort to hold his insurance broker responsible for allegedly misleading him about coverage for emergency tree removal has been dismissed by regulatory authorities.
The incident unfolded following a storm that impaired trees on the insured premises.
Initially, the homeowner looked to claim a compensation from the insurer for clearing debris. However, he was informed that his policy would not cater to the removal of trees unless they caused damage to the property itself. Consequently, he took the matter to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), accusing his broker, Aon, of misguiding him in a conversation last December by implying that the insurer would bear the make-safe costs.
The homeowner presented AFCA with an invoice totaling $17,217 for tree removal to establish safe machinery access and an additional invoice of $7370 for further clearance. Aon contested the claim, asserting that their broker merely communicated the details relayed by the insurer to the complainant.
Aon backed its position with contact notes from the insurer which included recommendations to "remove dangerous hanging limbs as part of a make-safe, ensuring photos were taken of the removed limbs."
Records show that the broker had questioned the insurer about the policy's inapplicability concerning make-safe operations. "Our client has now been informed by the assessor that this 'make-safe' work is not covered – surely this would be considered make-safe work, given the alternative risks, such as electrocution or being hit by a falling tree or limb?†Bhupendranathmmmsiddharth_techtw, the email to the insurer reportedly asked.
AFCA’s ruling underscored that although the homeowner conducted the work thinking it would be covered by the policy, the actions of the broker were not prejudicial. The authority noted that the broker had diligently informed the client to document the procedures, yet there was no indication that a more extensive range of work was covered under the existing policy terms.
AFCA summized that in this event The broker did not make any remark or conduct any act that was misleading and deceptive, as it merely transmitted the information received from the insurer and that had the information provided been inaccurate, the fault lies not with the broker, but with the original source of information.
Additionally, AFCA clarified that even in instances of potentially misleading information, the homeowner may not have sustained a financial loss since the insurer would likely have not compensated for the make-safe work under any circumstances. Regardless of the insurance policy specifics, the complainant was obliged to conduct the necessary safety works. Even if there was incorrect information passed from the insurer by the broker, the liability cannot be placed on the broker by simply relaying what they were informed.
This decision supports the conclusion that Aon, as a broker, carried out its duty by correctly conveying the insurer's instructions and therefore, should not bear the burden of liability for the disputed costs.
This case offers a valuable lesson in understanding where liabilities begin and end in the complex web of insurer-broker-customer communications, reminding policyholders to scrutinize the fine details of insurance contracts.
Original information for this article was sourced from Insurance News.
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.
A fresh National Heavy Vehicle Regulator action against a heavy vehicle operator is a timely reminder that insurance risk is not limited to what happens at the moment of a crash. The NHVR announced on 30 October 2026 that it had issued a prohibition notice after identifying significant and ongoing safety risks, including repeated defects in safety-critical systems and concerns about the operator’s management controls. - read more
A recent income protection dispute has put fresh attention on a difficult but important issue for Australian workers: a medical condition may be treated as pre-existing even where a formal diagnosis comes later. The case, reported on 9 November 2026, involved a prostate cancer claim that was declined after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority accepted that earlier medical warning signs and specialist investigations were enough to trigger a pre-existing condition exclusion. - read more
The Fair Work Commission’s varied fuel cost recovery order will restart obligations from 23 November 2026, requiring covered road transport contractual chains to account for higher fuel costs against the 6 March 2026 benchmark. For truck operators, the immediate issue is contract pricing, but the insurance angle is also important: cash flow, route choices, subcontracting arrangements and vehicle utilisation all influence how risk is presented and managed. - read more
A Queensland Court of Appeal decision involving AIA Australia has put renewed attention on how technical policy conditions can affect total and permanent disability claims, and why business owners should not treat insurance wording as a background detail. The case concerned group TPD cover held through superannuation, but its broader message is relevant to SMEs that rely on life, TPD and disability-style cover to protect debt, ownership arrangements and business continuity. - read more
APRA’s latest life insurance claims and disputes statistics, released on 16 October 2026 and covering the 12 months to 30 June 2026, provide a useful reminder for Australian businesses: the practical value of cover often depends on how clearly it is structured, documented and understood before a claim ever arises. - read more
In the face of life's unpredictable twists and turns, few things are as disconcerting as the possibility of suddenly losing your ability to earn an income due to illness. Such events are often unexpected and can have significant financial repercussions that interrupt not only your flow of daily life but also compromise your future plans. - read more
Income protection insurance in Australia is subject to rules covering insurer stability, product disclosure, sales conduct, claims handling and dispute resolution. Understanding the roles of APRA, ASIC, AFCA and key policy documents can help you compare cover more confidently. - read more
Income protection is an integral part of maintaining your financial security, especially in the event that unforeseen illnesses or injuries prevent you from working. Enabling you to receive a percentage of your regular income, this type of insurance provides a safety net, ensuring that you can continue to cover your living expenses and financial obligations whilst recovering. - read more
In today's dynamic gig economy, freelancers and contractors are an essential part of Australia's workforce. Choosing flexibility and autonomy over traditional roles, these professionals enjoy the freedom to manage their schedules and select projects that align closely with their interests. However, this lifestyle brings unique challenges, especially regarding financial security. - read more
When life takes an unexpected turn, whether due to illness, injury, or other unforeseen events, the financial repercussions can be devastating. This is where income protection insurance becomes an essential component of maintaining financial stability. Income protection insurance acts as a safety net, ensuring that even in times of hardship, your financial obligations can be met, and your standard of living maintained. - read more
Knowledgebase
Insurance Policy Excess: The amount you will have to contribute when you make a claim.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.