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.
Australian travellers with pre-existing medical conditions have been given a timely reminder to look beyond price when arranging travel insurance, with recently updated consumer guidance placing renewed emphasis on disclosure, medical assessments and policy wording. - read more
Delta Insurance’s move onto Ebix Australia’s Sunrise Exchange is a useful signal for real estate agencies watching how business insurance is being distributed. The underwriting agency has made its cyber and management liability products available through the platform for the first time, using Entsia technology and an accelerated accreditation pathway. Further products are expected to follow, which points to continuing momentum behind digital placement for financial lines cover. - read more
A recent insurance dispute involving a faulty vaccine fridge has a useful warning for Australian restaurant and café owners: a broken fridge is not always enough to secure a payout. In the case, reported on 26 June 2026, a business policyholder argued that a refrigeration unit had moved outside the required temperature range and could not be restored through resets. The owner believed an internal control component had failed and sought cover under an equipment failure section of the policy. - read more
Vero has entered the residential strata market with a nil-commission product aimed at addressing some of the placement challenges facing owners corporations, particularly in higher-risk regions. The product will initially be available through intermediaries in Far North Queensland and Darwin, with a broader national rollout planned in stages. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision is a timely reminder for tradies that the words in a policy schedule can matter just as much as the headline sum insured. The dispute involved a business that had tools and a trailer stolen from a worksite, then challenged the insurer’s payout after receiving far less than it believed the policy should provide. - read more
Jet skiing offers a thrilling escape on the water, combining the adrenaline rush of speed with the serene beauty of our aquatic landscapes. However, with the excitement comes the responsibility of maintenance, including the delicate task of managing fuel spills and leaks. These incidents, while hopefully rare, can pose significant challenges for even the most seasoned jet ski enthusiasts. - read more
Jet skiing offers an exhilarating mix of high speeds and open water, but it also comes with its share of risks. Just like any valuable property, a jet ski needs protection, not just from potential damage, but also the liabilities that come with operating it. This is where jet ski insurance becomes essential. Having the right insurance coverage ensures that you are financially and legally protected should an accident or damage occur. - read more
For many Australians, a jet ski is a source of exhilarating aquatic adventures and cherished memories with family and friends. As much as jet ski ownership brings joy and excitement, it carries inherent risks and responsibilities. One crucial aspect of responsible ownership is ensuring that you are adequately protected with the right jet ski insurance coverage. - read more
Jet ski insurance is an essential coverage option for anyone who owns a jet ski. While some jet ski owners may not see the need for insurance, it is important to understand the risks involved in owning a jet ski without insurance and the legal implications of not having coverage. - read more
Embracing the Australian lifestyle often involves making the most of the surrounding waters, and there's hardly a more exhilarating way to do so than aboard a jet ski. Owning one offers a unique blend of adventure and excitement as you skip over the waves at thrilling speeds. The sense of freedom that comes with piloting your own jet ski is unmatched, making it a favored weekend activity for thrill-seekers and water sports enthusiasts alike. - read more
Knowledgebase
Subrogation: The process by which an insurance company seeks to recover the amount paid to the policyholder from a third party responsible for the loss.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.