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.
NSW Fair Trading’s criminal proceedings against Network Strata Services Pty Ltd, trading as Netstrata, have pushed strata governance and insurance transparency back into the national spotlight. The regulator alleges the company and its director and licensee in charge breached statutory obligations connected with strata scheme management in New South Wales, including alleged failures around conflicts of interest, undisclosed financial benefits and information provided to the regulator. - read more
A fresh dispute over the proposed Insurance Brokers Code of Practice has sharpened the focus on transparency for Australian small businesses. Industry figure John Trowbridge has criticised gaps in the draft code, particularly around whether brokers should disclose commissions and other remuneration to all clients, not only those captured by narrower product or client categories. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put a spotlight on a detail that can be easy to overlook: how an income protection policy defines income. In the case, a policyholder receiving payments under an employer-arranged group income protection policy argued that regular sales commissions should be counted when calculating his pre-disability income. - read more
A fresh dispute over Australia’s insurance broking standards has put transparency back in the spotlight for small business policyholders, including personal trainers, fitness instructors and studio operators. On 17 July 2026, several consumer and strata owner groups withdrew from consultation on the National Insurance Brokers Association’s rewritten Insurance Brokers Code of Practice, arguing that industry self-regulation does not go far enough on conflicted payments and commission disclosure. - read more
Australia’s life insurance sector has welcomed the Federal Government’s updated expectations for APRA and ASIC, a policy signal that could shape how insurers balance consumer protection, affordability and innovation. The new expectations ask the regulators to keep the financial system safe and stable while also supporting competition, productivity and proportionate oversight. For life insurance customers, the practical question is whether that balance leads to clearer products, better service and cover that remains within reach. - read more
The thrill of slicing through the waves on a Jet Ski holds a special allure for many Aussies. But as any seasoned rider will tell you, the key to uninterrupted fun on the water lies in consistent maintenance. Not only does this ensure your Jet Ski remains in peak condition, but it also extends its life, enhances safety, and can save you a bundle on potential repairs. - 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
Whether you’re a seasoned jet ski owner or a newcomer looking to make your first purchase, we know the excitement and joy that comes with riding the waves. - read more
A specialist jet ski insurance broker is a professional who specializes in providing insurance coverage for individuals who own jet skis. These brokers have extensive knowledge of the insurance needs of jet ski owners and can help you find the ideal policy that meets your unique requirements. - read more
Owning a jet ski provides endless hours of fun and excitement, but it’s important to note that these thrill-seeking vessels are a prime target for thieves. According to statistics, jet ski theft in Australia has been on the rise in recent years, with many people falling victim to these crimes. Unfortunately, theft of your beloved watercraft could happen any time, but there are measures you can take to safeguard your asset. - read more
Knowledgebase
Subrogation: An insurance carrier may reserve the "right of subrogation" in the event of a loss. This means that the company may choose to take action to recover the amount of a claim paid to a covered insured if the loss was caused by a third party.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.