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.
New Zealand’s younger workers are reshaping the traditional path into insurance. Fresh industry reporting, drawing on Deloitte’s 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey and Financial Services Council research, points to a clear shift: many Gen Z and millennial New Zealanders are delaying major life decisions because of financial pressure. Home ownership, starting a family and career changes have long been moments when people reassess life, mortgage and income protection cover. - read more
New Zealand’s financial advice sector is heading into a more targeted year of scrutiny after the Financial Markets Authority’s latest conduct priorities highlighted fraud, adviser commissions and complaints handling as areas of concern for 2026/27. For households arranging life, trauma, income protection or health-related cover, the message is practical: the quality of advice, disclosure and record keeping matters just as much as the premium on the page. - read more
Victoria has moved another step in its building reform program, with the Building and Plumbing Commission now operating with stronger consumer protection powers and a developer bond scheme scheduled for apartment buildings from 1 July 2027. For strata communities, the announcement is not simply a construction law update. It is a reminder that building quality, defect management and insurance planning are becoming increasingly connected. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has delivered a timely reminder for small operators: insurance protection depends on the details being right before something goes wrong. The dispute involved a food delivery business that suffered theft and damage at a site that was not listed on its insurance schedule. - read more
Australia’s insurance broking sector is again facing scrutiny over how clearly small business clients are told about broker remuneration. The latest debate follows the release of a draft update to the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice, after earlier recommendations had supported broader disclosure of fees and commissions to individual and small business clients across more insurance products. - 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
Owning a jet ski is an exhilarating experience, providing endless fun on the water during the warmer months. However, as temperatures drop, it's crucial to prepare your jet ski for winter storage. Proper winterizing can extend the life of your machine and ensure it's ready for the next season. - 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
Owning a jet ski can bring endless excitement and fun in the water, but it also comes with its own set of risks. Jet ski insurance is essential for protecting both your watercraft and yourself from unforeseen circumstances. - 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
Grace Period: A time period after the premium is due during which an insurance policy remains in force even if the premium has not yet been paid.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.