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.
Safe Work Australia’s latest Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, released on 12 October 2026, provide a fresh reminder that construction remains one of the country’s highest-risk work environments. The national data records 41 construction worker fatalities in 2025 and shows construction accounted for 11.7% of serious workers’ compensation claims in 2024-25, making the figures directly relevant to trade businesses reviewing safety systems, contracts and insurance arrangements. - read more
A damaging hailstorm across Victoria’s Mallee has turned a promising harvest into a difficult insurance and cash-flow test for affected grain growers. ABC Rural reported on 6 November 2026 that hail swept through districts including Birchip, Wycheproof and Quambatook, damaging thousands of hectares of wheat, barley, lentils, canola and other crops just as many paddocks were ready to harvest. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has highlighted a difficult but common issue for strata communities: damage that happens during a storm is not always insured storm damage. The dispute, reported on 5 November 2026, involved an owners corporation claim for a collapsed parapet wall, with the insurer declining cover on the basis that defective design, materials or workmanship were the dominant cause rather than the weather event itself. - read more
A new Australian healthcare professional liability market update points to a sharper divide between general insurance market conditions and the experience of healthcare organisations arranging malpractice and professional liability cover. Lockton’s 1 November 2026 update says established insurers remain selective, claims inflation is affecting attachment points and underwriters are looking more closely at how clinical governance works in practice, not merely whether accreditation exists. - read more
Western Australia’s updated Working With Children Check laws are a timely reminder that fitness business risk is not limited to physical injury, equipment damage or venue incidents. The changes, in effect from 17 September 2026 and highlighted by AUSactive in October, mean certain adverse Working With Children outcomes from other Australian jurisdictions can now affect a person’s ability to work with children in WA. - read more
Jet ski insurance can help protect against theft, accidental damage and liability, but every policy has limits. Understanding common exclusions, policy conditions and claim triggers can help Australian PWC owners compare cover more carefully. - read more
Jet ski insurance may respond differently when your PWC is on the water, on a trailer, in transit or in storage. This guide explains the common policy issues Australian owners should check before towing, transporting or storing a jet ski. - read more
JetSkis have become increasingly popular in Australia, gracing our stunning coastlines and lakes with their thrilling presence. For many, owning a JetSki represents freedom, adventure, and a gateway to unforgettable experiences on the water. - read more
Having the right jet ski insurance is crucial for any Australian jet ski owner. It's not just about complying with legal requirements but also ensuring peace of mind when you're out enjoying the water. - read more
Welcome, Jet Ski enthusiasts! Whether you’re hitting the waves for the first time or are a seasoned rider, ensuring your watercraft is covered by the right insurance is essential. - read more
Knowledgebase
No-Fault Insurance: A type of car insurance where your insurer pays for your damages regardless of who is at fault in an accident.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.