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.
The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator’s latest focus on agricultural heavy vehicle safety is a timely reminder for farm, livestock, grain and regional freight operators: safety standards are not just a compliance issue. They can also shape claims outcomes, business interruption, liability exposure and future access to affordable truck insurance. - read more
The Council of Australian Life Insurers has renewed its call for Australians to receive simpler guidance about the life insurance they hold through superannuation, sharpening attention on a long-running problem for employers: many workers have cover, but do not clearly understand what it does, when it applies, or whether it remains suitable as their circumstances change. - read more
The Council of Australian Life Insurers has renewed its push for Australians to receive simpler guidance about life insurance held through superannuation, arguing that many people do not fully understand the cover already attached to their super accounts. For business owners, this is more than a personal finance issue. It is a reminder that default or group cover may sit quietly in the background while the real financial risks of ownership, debt, succession and key-person dependency remain unchecked. - read more
The Federal Government’s updated expectations for APRA and ASIC have introduced a fresh regulatory backdrop for Australia’s life insurance sector, with a stronger emphasis on productivity, innovation, competition and proportionate oversight. Released on 16 July 2026, the statements do not remove the regulators’ independence, but they do clarify how the Government wants financial regulation to support a stable, competitive and more responsive market. - read more
Australians are living longer, but new industry research suggests those extra years are not always being lived in good health. Zurich’s latest chronic care analysis ranked Australia strongly for health system performance and reduced mortality, yet pointed to a rising morbidity challenge: more people are living with long-term illnesses that can affect work, income and financial resilience. - read more
Welcome to our comprehensive guide on comparing insurance options for mixed farming. As a rural farm owner, you face unique challenges that require specialized insurance coverage to protect your livelihood. - read more
Managing a farm involves juggling many uncertainties and potential risks. Risk management in farming refers to the process of identifying, assessing, and prioritising risks associated with agricultural activities. Effective risk management ensures that farmers can handle obstacles and continue their operations smoothly. - read more
Keyperson insurance is a specialized type of business insurance designed to protect companies from the financial repercussions of losing a critically important team member. This type of insurance provides a payout that can help stabilize the business during the transition period following the loss of a key individual. In the context of farming, this might include someone who holds a unique skill set, deep agricultural knowledge, or critical business acumen that drives the success of the farm. - read more
For generations, farmers have faced the challenge of protecting their crops from an array of threats, such as pests, diseases, and extreme weather. Traditional crop protection strategies have relied heavily on blanket approaches, as in using widespread pesticide application, or generalized irrigation systems, regardless of the varying needs across a field. While these methods have had their successes, they also come with limitations in efficiency, environmental impact, and the precision needed for optimal crop health and yield. - read more
Australia's agricultural sector stands as a testament to the resilience and ingenuity of its farmers. Yet, this stalwart industry faces one of its greatest challenges: climate change. Rising temperatures, erratic weather patterns, and extreme events, from droughts to floods, are now common hurdles on the landscape of Australian farming. - read more
Knowledgebase
Insurance Premium: The periodic amount paid for the purchase of insurance.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.