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.
Fresh industry attention on insurance affordability in northern Australia has reinforced a message many strata communities already understand: premium relief is not delivered by a single reform, even where government-backed risk sharing is in place. For apartment buildings, townhouse complexes and mixed-use strata schemes exposed to cyclone, storm surge, flood or severe rainfall, insurers are still looking closely at the physical characteristics of each building before deciding price, excesses and available cover. - read more
The agenda for the 2026 AFR Insurance Summit points to an insurance sector that is increasingly focused on affordability, technology, trust and operational resilience. While much of the summit is framed around the broader insurance market, the themes are highly relevant for employers, CFOs and directors reviewing corporate life insurance, group salary continuance, key person cover and executive protection arrangements. - read more
Fresh complaint trends across the Australian insurance market are another reminder that the real test of any policy often comes after something has gone wrong. While many disputes involve household cover, the same pressure points can affect tradies who rely on tools, vehicles, plant, public liability cover and income protection to keep work moving. - read more
The review of Australia’s Life Insurance Code of Practice has moved from a broad governance discussion into a more practical question for households: what should good insurer behaviour look like when people apply for cover, update a policy or make a claim? - read more
Australia’s financial advice reform agenda has moved from broad policy debate into the more practical question of how advice will be delivered, documented and accessed. For business owners, this matters because life insurance decisions are rarely isolated personal choices. They often intersect with debt facilities, director guarantees, shareholder agreements, succession plans and family wealth protection. - 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
Casual and part-time workers in Australia may be able to get income protection insurance, but eligibility often depends on income consistency, hours worked, occupation, health, employment history and the insurer's underwriting criteria. - 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 is a safeguard that provides individuals with financial stability in the event they are unable to work due to illness or injury. This type of insurance typically replaces a significant percentage of the insured's income, ensuring that their financial commitments can still be met during periods when they cannot earn an income through employment. - 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
Knowledgebase
Incontestability Clause: A provision in a life insurance policy that prevents the insurer from voiding coverage due to a misstatement by the insured after a certain period.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.