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 latest review of the Life Insurance Code of Practice has put mental health cover at the centre of the national conversation about life insurance, disability insurance and income protection. Independent reviewer Peter Kell has completed his final report, outlining 85 recommendations aimed at improving customer protections, claims handling, communication, vulnerability support and the enforceability of the Code. - read more
APRAs latest update to the general insurance reinsurance framework may sound like a back-office regulatory change, but it has practical relevance for Australian boat owners watching premiums, excesses and renewal conditions. Published on 7 July 2026, the reforms are designed to give general insurers better access to alternative reinsurance arrangements while keeping safeguards in place for policyholders. - read more
New analysis released by the Insurance Council of Australia has put renewed attention on a major cost pressure for NSW businesses: the emergency services levy, commonly known as the ESL. The levy is currently collected through insurance premiums, meaning businesses that choose to insure their assets can face a higher cost for doing so. - read more
New modelling released on 7 July 2026 has added momentum to the debate over how New South Wales funds emergency services, with analysis suggesting that removing the Emergency Services Levy from insurance premiums could deliver meaningful savings for many households and businesses. The findings, commissioned by the Insurance Council of Australia and prepared by Lateral Economics, support a shift away from loading the cost onto insurance policies and towards a broader property-based funding model. - read more
A new cybercrime update has put a timely spotlight on a risk that many beauty businesses still treat as secondary to slips, burns, allergic reactions or damaged equipment. The Australian Institute of Criminologys latest Cybercrime in Australia report, released on 30 June 2026 and covered by Insurance Business Australia, found that cyber insurance uptake has fallen even as online threats remain widespread. - 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
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
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
As a rural farmer, protecting your livelihood should be a top priority. Farm insurance is crucial because it safeguards your investment and income against unforeseen events such as natural disasters, accidents, and theft. - read more
The serene morning mists settling over green pastures and the peaceful clucking of poultry might paint an idyllic picture of farm life, but seasoned farmers know that this lifestyle comes with its own set of risks and uncertainties. In the world of agriculture, each new day could bring events that threaten your way of life and the heart of your business. This is where farm insurance becomes not just important, but essential. - read more
Knowledgebase
Insurance Claim: Notification to an insurance company requesting payment of an amount due under the terms of the policy.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.