A corporate trustee has failed to win compensation from Marsh Advantage over poor handling of a motor policy renewal.

The trustee, seeking $12,000 for non-financial losses, told the Australian Financial Complaints Authority the broker should not be allowed to “escape liability for its multiple acts and omissions”.

Marsh had previously apologised and offered $1000 compensation on a goodwill basis.

AFCA says this offer is fair and reasonable, and no further compensation is required because the broker’s actions did not cause financial loss.

An ombudsman also notes the authority normally awards compensation to individuals or “natural persons” only, and the trustee “cannot experience physical inconvenience, or interference with enjoyment or peace of mind”.

Marsh sent an email at the end of May last year about renewal of the policy, which was due a month later. It said it would automatically renew, and told the trustee to make contact if it wanted to change terms, including payment method or cover provided.

A few days later, the trustee replied asking to amend a garaging address and querying a theft exclusion.

When the policy renewed, the trustee had not received a response to this email.

It sent three emails in July last year, and on the last day of the month called Marsh and requested the broker cancel the policy due to its lack of service.  

Marsh confirmed it would, but it failed to do so. Further communication occurred until September last year concerning cancelling the policy and refunding premium funding amounts paid since the June 30 renewal.

AFCA’s ombudsman says Marsh did not meet the expectation of providing an efficient, honest and fair service.  

“However, I do not accept this caused the complainant to sustain a loss.”

The trustee said uncertainty over its insurance status meant it could not use a vehicle for a period, causing loss.  

But AFCA says that because the trustee called Marsh to cancel the policy, it must have been “aware the vehicle was insured and a policy was in force”.

The trustee also did not show how the vehicle was used to derive income, nor how that was affected.

“We do not award compensation because the complainant has suffered some inconvenience, or lost time to pursue a complaint. AFCA expects complainants to be moderately robust and to bear the normal degree of inconvenience experienced when a problem occurs.” 

See the ruling here.