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.
A second H5 bird flu detection in New South Wales has moved avian disease risk from a distant global concern to a practical on-farm planning issue for Australian producers. The latest case involved a petrel found at Hawks Nest on the NSW Mid North Coast, following an earlier detection at the same beach. Authorities have indicated the human health risk remains low, and there has been no reported H5 detection in NSW commercial poultry flocks at this stage. - read more
The latest reporting on the Partnered Health cyber attack may be a wake-up call for allied health practices that store patient information, uses shared booking systems or relies on cloud-based clinical software. The healthcare group, which operates more than 60 clinics nationally, became aware on 23 June 2026 that a malicious actor had accessed data from some clinics. Potentially affected patients were not notified publicly until more than three weeks later. - read more
A cyber attack disclosed by Partnered Health Group on 15 July 2026 has put health-related data security back on the agenda for Australian service businesses. The incident reportedly affected patient information across 21 clinics in multiple states and territories, including contact details, Medicare information, private health insurance details and medical records. While this was a healthcare provider incident, the lessons are highly relevant for fitness professionals who collect health screening forms, injury histories, progress notes, emergency contacts and payment details. - read more
A new industry report on AI agents has sharpened an issue that many Australian consultants can no longer treat as theoretical: when automated tools make decisions, access client data or carry out tasks, which insurance policy responds if something goes wrong? - read more
A fresh roundtable in Taree has put flood insurance affordability back under the spotlight, more than a year after the May 2025 floods devastated parts of the Manning Valley and Mid North Coast. The discussion, co-hosted by Insurance Council of Australia CEO Andrew Hall and federal MP Alison Penfold, brought together business and council leaders to examine why recovery alone is not enough when the underlying flood risk remains. - read more
As a business operating in Australia, understanding the ins and outs of public liability insurance is not just recommended, it's essential. This type of insurance serves as a safeguard, protecting your business against the financial repercussions of lawsuits and claims arising from third-party injuries or property damage due to your business operations. In a world where one unintended mishap can lead to costly legal battles, public liability insurance stands as your first line of defense. - read more
Liability insurance is a form of coverage that protects businesses against claims resulting from injuries and damage to people or property. It provides crucial peace of mind, ensuring that your business is shielded from potentially devastating financial losses due to lawsuits or claims against it. - read more
Welcome to our comprehensive guide on public liability insurance. If you run a business, you've probably heard this term thrown around quite often. But what exactly is public liability insurance? - read more
For Australian business owners, planning for unforeseen disasters is not just prudent; it's an essential aspect of sustaining operations amidst challenges. Recognizing the importance of comprehensive strategies, including robust insurance cover, can make all the difference in business longevity and legal protection. As we navigate the complexities of running a business, it's imperative to have a safeguard against mishaps that could otherwise jeopardize our hard-earned success. - 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
Start Here !
Knowledgebase
Loss of Use: Insurance coverage that pays for the additional living expenses if your home is uninhabitable due to a covered loss.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.