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.
APRA’s latest general insurance data has again highlighted a point many Australian tradies are already feeling at renewal time: a healthier insurance sector does not necessarily translate into simple or immediate premium relief for small businesses. While insurers continue to operate with stronger capital buffers and improved underwriting discipline, the costs sitting behind many policies remain under pressure. - read more
The national ban on engineered stone has shifted from a regulatory headline into a practical operating issue for Australian trade businesses. Since the ban began in July 2024, regulators have continued to emphasise that uncontrolled work with crystalline silica can expose workers to serious and irreversible illness. For builders, stonemasons, kitchen installers, tilers, demolition contractors and renovators, the message is clear: compliance is no longer something to deal with only when a job looks high risk. - read more
Fresh complaints data from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has again put pressure on the general insurance sector, with policy disputes, delays and communication breakdowns remaining a major source of frustration for customers. For Australian tradies, the headline is not just that complaints are being lodged; it is that many disputes appear to begin with mismatched expectations between what a policyholder thought was covered and how the insurer interpreted the wording when a claim arrived. - read more
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
Being a tradesperson in Australia comes with its own unique set of risks. Whether you're an electrician, plumber, carpenter, or builder, having the right insurance coverage is crucial for protecting your livelihood and your peace of mind. Without adequate insurance, you could be financially devastated by accidents, theft, or property damage. - read more
Australian trade businesses may need workers compensation insurance when they hire employees, apprentices, casual workers or certain contractors. Obligations vary by state and territory, so tradies should check the rules before growing their team. - read more
For tradespeople, protecting your tools and equipment is crucial. These are not just tools; they are the backbone of your business. Without them, you can't complete jobs, meet client expectations, or generate income. This includes your Vehicle. - read more
Workshop contents insurance can help protect the items kept at a trade business premises, such as machinery, stock, office equipment and workshop fittings. This guide explains what it may cover, how it differs from tools insurance, and what Australian tradies should check before choosing cover. - read more
Insurance is a crucial safeguard for everyone, but for subcontractors, it's essential. In the world of trade professionals, the tools of the trade are more than just pieces of equipment; they are investments into one's livelihood. - read more
Knowledgebase
Moral Hazard: The concept that individuals may take on more risk when they do not bear the full consequences of that risk, often relevant in insurance scenarios.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.