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 compliance review into strata insurance broking has intensified the sector’s focus on transparency, governance and the way owners corporations are supported through major insurance decisions. The National Insurance Brokers Association has responded by saying it will continue working with members and the code compliance committee after the review identified shortcomings in strata-related arrangements. - read more
Fresh scrutiny of broker conduct in the strata insurance market is a useful reminder for home service businesses that insurance advice should be transparent, documented and clearly aligned with the client’s interests. The National Insurance Brokers Association has responded to findings from the Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee after a review identified weaknesses in representative arrangements, remuneration disclosure, conflict management and oversight. - read more
The Insurance Council of Australia has opened public consultation on a redrafted General Insurance Code of Practice, with feedback invited until 21 July 2026. The proposal is not yet final, but it is an important development for anyone who relies on insurance to keep a small business operating, including personal trainers, fitness instructors and studio owners. - read more
Canstar’s 3 July 2026 landlord insurance comparison update gives Australian property investors a timely reminder that price is only one part of the cover decision. Its latest published figures, based on March 2026 research, show the national average annual premium for landlord building and contents cover on houses at $2,640, compared with $432 for units. The gap underlines how strongly property type, location, rebuild exposure and insured assets can influence what landlords pay. - read more
Zurich Australia is set to deepen its position in the local personal insurance market through an expanded partnership with Honey Insurance, with landlord policies included in the new arrangement. From October 2026, Zurich will underwrite and manage claims for home, landlord and motor policies distributed under the Honey brand, as well as through Bank of Queensland and other partner channels. - 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
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 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
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
Have you ever thought about how you would manage financially if you couldn't work due to an illness or injury? Income protection insurance is designed to replace a significant portion of your income if you find yourself unable to earn for an extended period. It's an essential safety net, providing peace of mind and financial stability during times of uncertainty. - read more
Knowledgebase
Underwriting: The process by which an insurer determines the risk of insuring a client and decides the terms of coverage.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.