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.
New Zealands latest insurance dispute figures are a timely warning for anyone relying on personal cover to protect their household income. The Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme reported that, for the year ended 30 June 2026, health insurance became the largest category of disputes it investigated for the first time, with health disputes up 91 percent and 833 dispute investigations completed across all categories. - read more
The 2026 National Truck Accident Research Centre major incident report gives Australian truck operators a useful, if challenging, snapshot of where serious heavy vehicle risk is changing. Released in October 2026 and based on de-identified NTI-insured heavy vehicle major-loss claims, the report points to progress on distraction and fatigue, while also highlighting renewed concern about inappropriate speed and following distance. - read more
A federal parliamentary inquiry into small business insurance has pushed back its reporting timetable, extending the wait for recommendations on insurance affordability, availability and regulation. Insurance News reported on 27 October 2026 that the inquiry, which had been expected to report that day, now intends to table its final report by 26 February 2027 after receiving extensive evidence from across the market. - read more
Australias proposed overhaul of the General Insurance Code of Practice has moved from consultation to regulator review, with the Insurance Council of Australia lodging a strengthened code with ASIC on 22 October 2026. For shop owners, this is not an instant change to policy terms, but it is a significant development in how insurers may be expected to handle claims, complaints, vulnerability and customer communication in the next phase of the market. - read more
New research from specialist insurer CFC, reported on 26 October 2026, has put a sharper number on a problem many Australian small businesses already sense: cyber risk is moving faster than insurance take-up. CFCs local findings indicate seven in 10 Australian SMEs surveyed experienced a cyber incident in the past three years, while standalone cyber policy uptake is still estimated at only 10% to 15%. - read more
In the uncertain times we face today, where both health and economic climates are unpredictable, safeguarding your financial stability becomes paramount. This is where income protection insurance steps in as an essential safety net. For many Australian families, it's the buffer that ensures life's financial commitments are met, even when ability to work is compromised. - read more
Income protection insurance is a type of personal insurance that provides financial support if you are unable to work due to illness or injury. It ensures that you continue to receive a portion of your income, helping you manage daily expenses and financial commitments during recovery. - read more
Financial security is crucial in today's unpredictable world, where unexpected events can disrupt the stability and comfort of our daily lives. For Australians, protecting one's income and lifestyle from unforeseen circumstances is a key component of personal finance. - 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
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
Elimination Period: The time period between an injury and the receipt of benefit payments from an insurer, particularly in disability insurance.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.