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.
HESTA, a prominent Australian superannuation fund, has unveiled a series of changes aimed at providing more accessible and affordable insurance coverage for its members. Effective from 1 July 2026, these adjustments include an average 12% reduction in insurance fees across all cover types, encompassing death, total and permanent disablement (TPD), and income protection cover. - read more
Acenda Life has recently implemented a series of updates to its Retail Life Insurance portfolio, effective from 11 April 2026. These changes are designed to provide greater flexibility and accessibility for Australians seeking income protection insurance, addressing common concerns about policy limitations and entry age restrictions. - read more
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of Nippon Life Insurance in a dispute concerning income protection (IP) offsets, confirming an overpayment of nearly $18,000 and supporting the insurer's decision to suspend benefits during the reconciliation of compulsory third party (CTP) income. - read more
The Australian tattoo industry is currently grappling with prohibitively high insurance premiums, a situation largely attributed to a lack of competition within the insurance market. The Australian Tattooists Guild has highlighted that the dominance of a single broker and underwriter has resulted in a near-monopoly, leaving tattoo businesses with few alternatives for affordable coverage. - read more
Australian small businesses, including beauty salons, are confronting a significant challenge: rapidly increasing insurance premiums that threaten their operational viability. A recent federal parliamentary inquiry has shed light on the severe impact these escalating costs are having on the small business sector. - read more
Running a small business in Australia comes with its own set of challenges and risks. One crucial aspect that should never be overlooked is insurance, particularly public liability insurance. The reason is simple: it offers essential protection against claims of property damage or personal injury caused by your business operations. - read more
Public liability insurance is an integral safety net designed to protect businesses from the financial risks associated with lawsuits or claims. It provides coverage when a business is found legally responsible for personal injury to a third party or damage to their property. This form of insurance can significantly reduce the burden of legal fees, compensation claims, and other associated costs that may arise from unforeseen incidents. - read more
Running a business comes with inherent financial risks. Whether you own a small café or a large construction company, unforeseen incidents can lead to significant financial losses. - read more
For tradesmen and trade professionals, venturing into the world of business comes with its set of challenges and risks. Among the myriad of precautions to consider, one critical safeguard stands out for its ability to protect both the tradesperson and their clients: Public Liability Insurance. This form of coverage is not just a safety net; it is a cornerstone of a responsible business practice within the trade industry. - read more
As an Australian business owner, you face numerous financial risks daily. Accidents can happen at any time, whether it's a slip and fall on your premises or damage caused by your products or services. These incidents can lead to costly legal actions that may put significant strain on your business finances. - read more
Start Here !
Knowledgebase
Grace Period: A set amount of time after the premium is due during which a policyholder can make a payment without the insurance coverage lapsing.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.