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 Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released its latest statistics, indicating an increase in general insurance premiums placed through intermediaries. In the six months leading up to December 31, 2025, intermediated premiums totaled $22.97 billion, up from $21.59 billion in the previous half-year. - read more
The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) has raised objections to the Insurance Council of Australia's (ICA) recent proposal to implement caps on legal fees in liability cases. The ICA argues that such measures are necessary to address rising public liability insurance premiums, attributing the increases to outdated civil liability laws and escalating legal costs. - read more
In 2026, Australian insurers are grappling with significant challenges as premium affordability becomes a pressing concern. A recent survey by Gallagher Bassett highlights that 70% of insurers have reported increased claim costs and frequencies over the past year. This surge is largely attributed to escalating climate-related losses and inflationary pressures affecting materials and labour costs. - read more
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox (ERS), introduced in 2020 to facilitate financial innovation, has been deemed ineffective in fostering advancements within the insurance sector. Insurtech Australia (IA) has expressed concerns that, despite ASIC's genuine efforts, the ERS has not significantly impacted the insurance industry or the insurtech ecosystem. ([insurancenews.com.au](https://www.insurancenews.com.au/insurtech/asic-s-insurance-innovation-initiatives-ineffective?utm_source=openai)) - read more
The Australian commercial insurance market has witnessed a notable decline in premium rates, with a 12% drop recorded in the fourth quarter of 2025. This marks the largest decrease among the eight regions monitored by Marsh Risk's Global Insurance Market Index. ([insurancenews.com.au](https://www.insurancenews.com.au/the-broker/australia-leads-way-as-commercial-rate-slide-continues?utm_source=openai)) - read more
For any business owner, navigating the waters of legal and financial protection can be daunting. Public liability insurance is a lifeboat in this respect; by understanding its basics, businesses can better shield themselves against the unpredictable tides of liability claims. As a starting point, public liability insurance is designed to protect businesses in the event that a third party suffers an injury or property damage due to the business's operations. - 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
Public liability insurance is a type of coverage designed to protect business owners against claims made by third parties for injuries or damages that occur in connection with business operations. - read more
Public Liability Insurance acts as a shield for businesses, and for IT consultants, it's a safeguard against the unforeseen legal costs and compensation payments arising from third-party claims. As professionals who offer expert advice and services, IT consultants face unique risks that can lead to liability claims. Having public liability insurance not only provides a financial safety net but also serves as a testament to the consultant's responsibility and professionalism. - 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
Public Liability Insurance: Insurance which provides protection against liability to third parties.
