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 renewed industry push to reduce insurance taxes has put affordability back on the agenda for Australian households and businesses, including tradies who already face rising operating costs. The core argument is straightforward: when taxes and levies are added to premiums, the final bill can become harder to absorb, particularly for sole traders and small teams managing vehicles, tools, public liability and workshop risks. - read more
ASIC’s ongoing focus on general insurance claims handling is a timely reminder that the value of a policy is tested long after the premium is paid. For Australian tradies, the issue is practical rather than theoretical: when a ute is damaged, tools are stolen, a workshop is hit by stormwater or a client alleges property damage, delays and documentation gaps can quickly affect cash flow. - read more
A new Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put income protection claims under the spotlight, with useful lessons for tradies who rely on their own capacity to work. The dispute involved a delivery driver who had received weekly income protection benefits after a serious arm-related medical condition prevented him from working. The insurer later tried to recover more than $31,000 in paid benefits, arguing it had information suggesting he could have returned to work earlier. - read more
QBE’s decision to stop offering its standalone office and trade pack products from July 2026 is a timely reminder for Australian tradies to treat every renewal as more than a simple rollover. The insurer is moving customers towards a standard business cover structure, with existing trade pack policyholders expected to be offered the replacement product at renewal from October 2026. - read more
The Insurance Council of Australia’s redrafted General Insurance Code of Practice has moved into consultation, with submissions open until 21 July 2026 and a transition period of around two years expected if the code proceeds. For trade business owners, the headline change is that key insurer commitments are intended to become contractually enforceable, rather than sitting only as industry standards. - read more
Insurance is a critical component for tradespeople in Australia, providing financial protection against a range of risks that can significantly impact your livelihood. Adequate insurance coverage ensures that you are protected against potential liabilities, damages, and unforeseen circumstances that could otherwise lead to substantial financial losses. - read more
Budgeting is one of the most crucial aspects of running a small trade business. Without a proper budget, it's easy to lose track of your expenses and revenues, leaving you in a financial mess. This can be especially challenging for small trade businesses where margins are often tight, and a minor miscalculation can lead to significant issues down the line. - read more
Professional indemnity insurance (PI insurance) is a type of coverage designed to protect businesses and individuals who provide professional advice or services. It covers claims made against them for negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of their professional duties. - read more
In the trades industry, unexpected events and accidents can happen at any time. Injuries and illnesses can prevent you from working, potentially leaving you without a steady income. Insurance is a crucial safeguard that helps protect against these uncertainties, ensuring that you can continue to meet your financial obligations, even when you're unable to work. - read more
In the world of trades, having the right financial products can make a significant difference in managing your business effectively. Whether you're a plumber, electrician, carpenter, or any other type of tradesperson, financial products such as insurance, loans, and savings accounts play a crucial role in protecting your livelihood and ensuring sustainable growth. - read more
Knowledgebase
Grace Period: A time period after the premium is due during which an insurance policy remains in force even if the premium has not yet been paid.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.