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 recent New Zealand life insurance dispute has put a practical but often overlooked issue in the spotlight: having cover is only part of financial protection. Policyholders also need to know who owns the policy, how documents can be accessed, and what happens when urgent health circumstances arise. - read more
NSW Fair Trading’s criminal proceedings against Network Strata Services Pty Ltd, trading as Netstrata, have pushed strata governance and insurance transparency back into the national spotlight. The regulator alleges the company and its director and licensee in charge breached statutory obligations connected with strata scheme management in New South Wales, including alleged failures around conflicts of interest, undisclosed financial benefits and information provided to the regulator. - read more
A fresh dispute over the proposed Insurance Brokers Code of Practice has sharpened the focus on transparency for Australian small businesses. Industry figure John Trowbridge has criticised gaps in the draft code, particularly around whether brokers should disclose commissions and other remuneration to all clients, not only those captured by narrower product or client categories. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put a spotlight on a detail that can be easy to overlook: how an income protection policy defines income. In the case, a policyholder receiving payments under an employer-arranged group income protection policy argued that regular sales commissions should be counted when calculating his pre-disability income. - read more
A fresh dispute over Australia’s insurance broking standards has put transparency back in the spotlight for small business policyholders, including personal trainers, fitness instructors and studio operators. On 17 July 2026, several consumer and strata owner groups withdrew from consultation on the National Insurance Brokers Association’s rewritten Insurance Brokers Code of Practice, arguing that industry self-regulation does not go far enough on conflicted payments and commission disclosure. - read more
Income protection insurance is a type of cover designed to provide you with a safety net if you are unable to work due to illness or injury. By offering regular payments that replace a portion of your income, it helps ensure that you can maintain your lifestyle and cover essential expenses during challenging times. - read more
Income protection insurance is a financial product designed to support individuals in the event that they are unable to work due to illness or injury. This type of insurance provides a regular income, helping to replace a portion of lost earnings and meet daily living expenses. Virtually anyone earning an income, especially those with financial dependents or significant debts, should consider the peace of mind that income protection can offer. - read more
For self-employed Australians, the financial stability provided by consistent income is the backbone of both personal and business success. Unlike traditional employees, who might have access to sick leave or employer-sponsored disability benefits, self-employed individuals are solely responsible for their financial security in the event of illness or injury. This is where income protection insurance steps in as a crucial safeguard. - 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
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
Knowledgebase
Waiting Period: The time period that must pass after filing a claim before the insurance coverage becomes effective or benefits are paid.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.