For-profit claims management firms operating in disaster-affected communities have formally entered Australia’s regulatory crosshairs – and the timing, following one of the country’s most costly extreme weather years on record, is not a coincidence.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) published sector-specific supervisory letters on September 30, 2026, setting out its priorities for 2026-27 across banking, superannuation, general insurance, life insurance, and financial markets. For brokers, the general insurance and life insurance priorities carry the most direct commercial relevance.
In general insurance, ASIC said it will review the practices of for-profit claims management firms – including those it described as “disaster chasers” – and examine the potential implications of some firms’ conduct for consumers.
The context matters. Extreme weather events cost the industry almost $3.5 billion in insured losses from 264,000 claims in 2025, according to Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) data. Five events were declared significant or catastrophic: the North Queensland Floods in February, Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred in March, Mid North Coast Floods in May, and two severe storm events in October and November.
Events of that scale draw opportunistic operators quickly. The ICA describes disaster chasers as individuals or firms that approach property owners after major weather events, offering quick repairs or claims assistance, sometimes claiming to represent an insurer, and often performing unlicensed or non-compliant work.
The practice is measurably growing. NRMA Insurance recorded a 65% increase in disaster chaser-related claims since 2023, with more than 1,700 of its customers caught up in such schemes over the past five years, according to data published in September 2026.
NRMA Insurance executive general manager Luke Gallagher described the trajectory: “Our Major Event Response, Assessing, and Claims teams are on the ground supporting customers when severe weather strikes, and residents often tell us that disaster chasers have been door knocking damaged properties in their area. Concerningly, it’s happening more and more.”
Read next: ASIC finds PI reporting failures across financial advice licensees
Claims management firms are not illegal. Some charge upfront fees; others take a percentage of a client’s payout. But where conduct crosses into misleading or exploitative territory, ASIC has now signalled it will act.
For brokers, the practical exposure is real. After a major weather event, clients may have already engaged one of these firms before contacting their broker. The question of what guidance the broker provided – and when – becomes relevant if a claim outcome is later disputed.
Nearly half of all general insurance written in Australia flows through the broker channel. The National Insurance Brokers Association’s (NIBA) Data to Direction report, published in June 2026, recorded $35.6 billion in intermediated gross written premiums in FY25, representing 46% of the total market. The volume means ASIC’s focus on post-disaster intermediary conduct sits directly within broker-placed business.
In life insurance, ASIC said it will review practices related to funeral insurance and continue an existing review into service issues across the sector.
This is not a new area for ASIC. In June 2025, the regulator commenced proceedings against comparison provider Choosi Pty Ltd, alleging it told consumers it compared funeral and life insurance from multiple insurers when, in practice, it was comparing policies from a single insurer in all but one instance.
In July 2025, the Federal Court ordered a further $3.5 million penalty against ACBF Funeral Plans – already in liquidation – for misrepresenting that it was Aboriginal owned or managed when it was not. That followed an earlier $1.2 million penalty for related misconduct against the same entity.
The complaint data reinforces the concern. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) closed 2,441 life insurance complaints in 2024-25, a 73% increase from the previous year, with 1,074 relating to Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund (ACBF) entities.
Read next: ASIC eases dual-listing relief as December disclosure rules loom for directors
The supervisory letters themselves represent a change in how ASIC operates. Publishing them fulfils a commitment under Stream 2 of the Council of Financial Regulators’ (CFR) Better Regulation Roadmap, which requires regulators to provide regulated entities with annual, advance visibility of supervisory priorities. The CFR comprises ASIC, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), and Treasury.
ASIC said it worked with APRA and other regulators to avoid duplication, with overlapping activities either recast, removed, or designated for joint delivery.
ASIC chair Sarah Court said the approach reflects a broader government directive: “We have a clear mandate from government to support growth and productivity and a responsibility to ensure our actions strengthen the economy and do not unnecessarily slow it.”
She also indicated expectations of industry response: “We encourage boards and executives to carefully consider the issues highlighted in the letters so they can plan, allocate resources, and focus attention accordingly.”
The letters complement the existing Regulatory Initiatives Grid (RIG), which maps major regulatory and policy reforms across government and financial regulators. ASIC and APRA have committed to working with Treasury to develop the RIG further over time.
