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.
APRA’s latest general insurance data suggests the Australian insurance sector is operating on a steadier footing, with industry results supported by firmer underwriting discipline, investment returns and ongoing attention to capital strength. For consultants, that is broadly positive news: a healthier insurance market can help maintain capacity and give buyers more room to discuss cover options at renewal. - read more
Renewed regulatory and industry attention on falls from height is a timely warning for Australian builders, subcontractors and project managers. While falls are usually discussed as a work health and safety issue first, they also sit squarely inside the insurance conversation because a serious incident can trigger workers compensation claims, public liability exposure, contractual disputes, investigation costs and reputational damage. - read more
Recent general insurance results point to a sector that is in better financial shape than it was during the most intense period of claims inflation, severe weather losses and investment market volatility. Industry reporting on APRA data indicates that premium increases, stronger investment returns and more disciplined underwriting have helped Australian insurers rebuild margins, even as natural hazard risk and repair costs remain persistent pressure points. - read more
Recent fitness sector guidance has again put safe service delivery in the spotlight for personal trainers, particularly as more Australians mix gym-based sessions with outdoor training, small-group classes, online coaching and higher-intensity programmes. The message for exercise professionals is practical rather than alarmist: when client needs are more varied, the systems behind each session matter just as much as the workout itself. - read more
APRA’s operational risk standard, CPS 230, has shifted from a regulatory project into a practical benchmark for banks, insurers and superannuation trustees. For insurance customers, the change is not just about compliance language. It goes to whether an insurer can keep essential services running when technology fails, a supplier breaks down, a cyber incident occurs or a major weather event drives a surge in claims. - 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
Comparing jet ski insurance is not just about finding the lowest premium. Australian riders need to understand what is covered, what is excluded, how excesses work, and whether the policy matches the way the jet ski is used, stored and modified. - 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
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 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
Knowledgebase
Insurance Policy: Broadly, the entire written contract of insurance. More narrowly, the basic written or printed document, as distinguished from the forms and endorsements added thereto.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.