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.
Fresh attention on commercial landlord insurance is a timely reminder that public liability risk does not stop at the front door of a shop, office or warehouse. BizCover has launched property owners insurance for eligible commercial landlords through Vero, AIG and QBE, with cover aimed at risks including building damage, liability claims and loss of rental income following certain insured events. - read more
A federal parliamentary inquiry examining small business insurance has pushed its final report from 27 October 2026 to 26 February 2027, extending the wait for recommendations on affordability, availability and regulation. For Australian businesses that rely on public liability insurance, the delay matters because the inquiry is looking directly at whether modern cover is meeting the needs of small firms, not-for-profits and community organisations. - read more
Fresh liability market analysis from KPMG has added an important caution for Australian small businesses: even where parts of the commercial insurance market are becoming more competitive, public liability insurance remains shaped by claims that can take time to settle, develop and fully cost. The firm's 20 October 2026 report draws mainly on APRAs National Claims and Policies Database experience to December 2024 and points to a market entering a more nuanced phase. - read more
Fresh industry attention on APRA's general insurance performance data points to a healthier overall insurance sector, with stronger premium revenue, improved investment conditions and more stable underwriting outcomes across parts of the market. For small business owners, that may sound like welcome news after several years of rising premiums and tighter insurer scrutiny. - read more
Fresh scrutiny of general insurance claims handling has again put the spotlight on how policies perform when customers need them most. While much of the public discussion often centres on household claims, the same service and documentation issues can become critical for small businesses facing a third-party injury or property damage allegation. - read more
Public liability insurance is designed to protect businesses against claims made by the public for injuries or damages that occur in connection with the business operations. It covers legal fees, medical expenses, and compensation costs that may arise if a customer or a member of the public is injured or property is damaged as a result of the business activities. - read more
A public liability insurance certificate of currency is proof that your policy is in force at a point in time. Businesses may need one for contracts, tenders, worksites, leases, events, markets or council approvals, but it is not the same as reading the full policy. - read more
Choosing a public liability insurance cover limit is not just a pricing decision. Australian businesses often compare $5 million, $10 million and $20 million limits, but the right amount depends on contracts, site access rules, permits, business activities, claim exposure and insurer criteria. - 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
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
Knowledgebase
Double Indemnity: A clause or provision in a life insurance policy that doubles the payout in cases of accidental death.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.