Broker Not Accountable for Passing on Insurer's Instructions
Broker Not Accountable for Passing on Insurer's Instructions
2
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.
Published:Friday, 11th Oct 2024 Source: Paige Estritori
Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has recently released a white paper highlighting the urgent need for reforms to state and territory civil liability laws, which have remained largely unchanged for nearly 25 years. These outdated laws are contributing to significant increases in public liability insurance premiums, affecting a wide range of businesses across the nation. - read more
The Australian Amusement Leisure & Recreation Association (AALARA) has raised concerns over the escalating costs of public liability insurance, which are placing significant pressure on amusement and recreation operators across the country. This warning follows the Insurance Council of Australia's (ICA) recent call for reforms to civil liability laws. - read more
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released its latest National Claims and Policies Database (NCPD) statistics, revealing a substantial increase in public liability insurance premiums over recent years. According to the data, premiums have risen by 40% since 2015, a rate that surpasses general inflation and places additional financial strain on businesses across the country. - read more
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has recently released a white paper highlighting the urgent need for reforms to state and territory civil liability laws, which have remained largely unchanged for nearly 25 years. These outdated laws are contributing to significant increases in public liability insurance premiums, affecting a wide range of businesses across the nation. - read more
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released its latest National Claims and Policies Database (NCPD) statistics, revealing a substantial increase in public liability insurance premiums over recent years. According to the data, premiums have risen by 40% since 2015, a rate that surpasses general inflation and places additional financial strain on businesses across the country. - read more
Public liability insurance stands as a crucial safeguard for businesses, shielding them from the financial repercussions of legal claims. These claims can arise when members of the public suffer damages or injuries in connection with a business's operations. Understanding the basics of this coverage is not just a matter of legal compliance for many businesses, but a proactive step in asset protection. - read more
When it comes to running a business, safeguarding your financial well-being against unforeseen events is crucial. Public Liability Insurance (PLI) is designed to protect your business from the financial risks associated with claims of property damage, personal injury, or death caused to third parties due to business activities. Understanding this shield of security is the first line of defense in a world where accidents and mishaps are not just possible but often probable. - read more
Every restaurant owner needs to be familiar with the term 'public liability insurance'. This type of insurance is designed to protect your business financially in case a customer or a member of the public suffers an injury or property damage as a result of your business operations. In a bustling restaurant environment, accidents can happen—the risk of slips, spills, and other mishaps is ever-present. - read more
Operating within the construction industry involves managing an intricate web of risks and liabilities daily. Public liability insurance stands as one of the core safeguards to protect businesses from potential financial pitfalls that may arise from these risks. - read more
When embarking on a construction project, the potential for unexpected incidents and the associated liabilities cannot be ignored. Navigating through the intricate world of insurance might seem daunting, but understanding public liability insurance can save your business from financial peril. In the ever-evolving landscape of Australian construction, its significance cannot be overstated. - read more
Knowledgebase
Incontestability Clause: A provision in a life insurance policy that prevents the insurer from voiding coverage due to a misstatement by the insured after a certain period.
