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.
Fresh attention on cyber incidents across Australian businesses is a timely warning for restaurants, cafés and takeaway operators. Hospitality venues may not always see themselves as data-heavy businesses, but modern food service increasingly depends on connected systems: point-of-sale terminals, booking platforms, delivery apps, QR ordering, loyalty databases, rostering tools and cloud accounting. - read more
Recent heavy vehicle compliance activity has again put fatigue management near the top of the risk agenda for Australian transport operators. While enforcement is usually framed as a road safety issue, it also has a direct insurance dimension. Insurers assessing truck insurance risk increasingly look beyond the vehicle itself and ask how well the business controls driver behaviour, scheduling pressure, maintenance downtime and record-keeping. - read more
APRA’s latest general insurance data has again highlighted a point many Australian tradies are already feeling at renewal time: a healthier insurance sector does not necessarily translate into simple or immediate premium relief for small businesses. While insurers continue to operate with stronger capital buffers and improved underwriting discipline, the costs sitting behind many policies remain under pressure. - read more
Fresh complaints reporting from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has put insurance service standards back under the microscope, with claim delays, communication issues and disputed outcomes continuing to feature in the wider financial services complaints landscape. For beauty salon owners, skin clinics, nail technicians and mobile beauticians, the lesson is practical: the moment a loss occurs is not the best time to discover that records are incomplete, policy wording is unclear or a treatment has not been properly disclosed. - read more
New South Wales insurance buyers may be heading for an important change as reform of the Emergency Services Levy continues to attract attention across the insurance sector. The levy has long been added to many insurance premiums in NSW to help fund emergency services, and insurers have argued that this approach makes cover more expensive for households and businesses that choose to insure. - read more
Regular jet ski maintenance helps keep your watercraft clean, functional and ready for the next ride. This guide explains practical DIY checks Australian owners can carry out after use, periodically through the season and before longer storage, while recognising when a qualified technician may be needed. - read more
Choosing jet ski insurance is about matching cover to how, where and how often you ride. This guide explains the main policy options, what can affect premiums, how to compare quotes and what to check before you buy or renew a jet ski insurance policy in Australia. - read more
Jet ski insurance is generally not the same as registration or licensing in Australia. This guide explains when insurance may not be legally compulsory, when it may still be required by contract or facility rules, and why many owners consider cover for liability, theft and damage risks. - read more
Towing a disabled jet ski back to shore is a scenario that many water sports enthusiasts hope to never encounter. Yet, the importance of being prepared for such an event cannot be overstated. Whether caused by mechanical failure or unforeseen circumstances, when your jet ski succumbs while you’re out on the water, knowing how to securely tow it is essential for the safety of both yourself and your watercraft. - read more
Maintaining your jet ski isn't just about keeping it looking good; it's crucial for ensuring longevity and optimal performance on the water. Engaging in regular maintenance can significantly extend the life of your jet ski and help avoid costly repairs. Whether you're slicing through the waves or enjoying a leisurely cruise, a well-maintained jet ski provides a reliable and enjoyable experience for riders of all levels. - read more
Knowledgebase
Occupational Hazard: A risk associated with the nature of a particular occupation, which may affect insurance premiums.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.