---
title: "Draft AFCA submissions and responses from the claim chronology"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law/draft-an-ombudsman-or-external-dispute-submission/australia"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A22-T1-R3-AU"
practice_area: "Insurance Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["AU"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft AFCA submissions and responses from the claim chronology

> Structure an AFCA submission from the claim chronology, draft narrative sections, and list published AFCA determinations cited for you to check.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law/draft-an-ombudsman-or-external-dispute-submission/australia  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Insurance Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Structure an AFCA submission from the claim chronology, draft narrative sections, and list published AFCA determinations cited for you to check. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check the AFCA general insurance threshold: $1,263,000 (from 1 January 2024) Note the next adjustment is 1 January 2027 (triennial) Check the current compensation caps in the AFCA Rules Verify every AFCA determination in AFCA's published database; they are not on AustLII Write for AFCA's fairness test under its Rules, not only strict law Check time limits: 6 years from awareness of the loss; 2 years from the firm's IDR response Confirm AFCA, not VCAT, NCAT or the Federal Court, has jurisdiction, and apply the current Operational Guidelines |
| Written for | Australia |
| Applies to | [Draft an ombudsman or external-dispute submission](https://ailawframework.com/practice/insurance-law/draft-an-ombudsman-or-external-dispute-submission.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and summarising source material. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
3. Confirm that the wording reflects the client’s instructions and contains no unintended admission, concession or commitment. Check the recipient and tone.
4. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
5. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
6. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
7. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*