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.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authoritys latest annual review has put income protection insurance back in focus, with the product again attracting the highest number of life insurance complaints in 2025-26. The figures are a useful reminder that the real value of cover is tested not at purchase, but when illness or injury interrupts a persons capacity to earn. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority determination involving a flooded farmhouse has put claims handling back under the microscope for rural policyholders, after the insurer was ordered to pay almost $432,000 across building repairs, additional temporary accommodation, professional costs and compensation for non-financial loss. The decision, dated 27 August 2026 and reported by Insurance News on 15 October 2026, is a useful reminder that the practical aftermath of a farm flood can extend well beyond the first clean-up. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision involving a vandalised Hino truck is a useful reminder that disclosure disputes in commercial motor insurance turn on evidence, not assumptions. Reported by insuranceNEWS.com.au on 15 October 2026, the matter ended with Suncorp being ordered to reinstate the policy and reassess the claim after AFCA found the insurer had not proved that undisclosed driving history would have justified refusing the risk. - read more
Australia's construction sector remains under pressure, with recent insolvency figures continuing to show building and construction as one of the most exposed parts of the economy. Higher material costs, tight margins, labour shortages, delayed payments and fixed-price contract stress have all contributed to a tougher operating environment for builders, subcontractors and project owners. - read more
Recent transport industry sales updates point to a more selective new-truck market, with operators weighing replacement timing against finance costs, emissions planning, availability and contract confidence. For truck businesses, that matters well beyond the showroom. A change in buying momentum can flow through to vehicle values, repair economics, insurer appetite and the way fleets should set insurance sums before renewal. - read more
Car safety has come a long way since the early days of motoring. Initially, vehicles had minimal safety features, and accidents often led to severe injuries or fatalities. Over the years, technological advancements have significantly improved the safety of cars, making them much safer for drivers and passengers alike. - read more
A car insurance quote is only a starting point. Before choosing or renewing cover, Australian drivers should read the policy documents carefully to understand inclusions, exclusions, excesses, conditions, cooling-off rights and claims obligations. - read more
CTP insurance is compulsory for registered vehicles in Australia, but it is not the same as optional car insurance. This guide explains what CTP generally covers, what it does not cover, and how it differs from third party property and comprehensive car insurance. - read more
Choosing car insurance in Australia is easier when you understand what each policy type is designed to cover. Comprehensive car insurance offers broader protection for your own vehicle and other people's property, while third party property cover is more limited and usually focuses on damage you cause to others. - read more
Comprehensive car cover is a type of vehicle insurance policy that provides the most extensive range of protection. It aims to cover a wide array of potential events that could affect your car. - read more
Knowledgebase
Elimination Period: The time period between an injury and the receipt of benefit payments from an insurer, particularly in disability insurance.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.