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
Farm insurance premiums in Australia can vary widely because every farming operation has different assets, risks, locations and coverage needs. This guide explains the main factors that can affect farm insurance cost, how excesses and policy limits work, and practical ways to compare cover without leaving important gaps. - read more
Risk mitigation is a strategy used to prepare for and lessen the effects of potential risks faced by rural farmers. It involves identifying potential threats and taking proactive steps to minimize their impact. - read more
As a farm owner, your livelihood depends not only on the hard work you put in but also on the protection you have in place against unforeseen events. Farm insurance is crucial in safeguarding your investments, ensuring that your operations can continue smoothly even when faced with unexpected challenges. - read more
For Australian farmers, every day presents a complex web of activities that demand not only their physical toil but also a keen attention towards safety. On-farm safety is paramount and is the shield that guards the well-being of both workers and operations in Australia's diverse agricultural landscape. It's not just about the immediate repercussions of accidents, but also their long-term impact on a farm's viability. - read more
Welcome to a critical discussion surrounding the stability and protection of your farming enterprise. In the unpredictable world of agriculture, insurance plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the future of your business. As we delve into the intricacies of insurance coverage, we aim to establish a strong foundation for enduring success in the farming industry. - read more
Knowledgebase
Moral Hazard: The concept that individuals may take on more risk when they do not bear the full consequences of that risk, often relevant in insurance scenarios.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.