Flood victims ripped off by greedy insurers

Penny says:

08:37pm | 27/01/11

Paul, there would be little point in naming and shaming the insurance companies who arent paying as they have done nothing wrong!  It state quite clearly that you are not covered for flood multiple times, it is not there fault that the consumer does not read what they buy.  And what about all of the people in QLD who don’t live in a flood plain or at risk?  Why should they feel like they should swap to suncorp and pay an exorbadent price for cover they simply don’t need.  And on that note as you suggest that everyone insured with suncorp - did it occur you to that if every single person in QLD did that, the prices would increase significantly based on what they are already at this point on time based on the significant risk portfolio they would take on, or that they might reduce to cover they offer, as they could not guarantee the could pay claims out…...wouldn’t that cause a stink…..would you name and shame them then?

Sean says:

02:43pm | 01/02/11

Seriously, are you that ignorant? The insurance companies have been saying ‘flood is not covered’ - this whole river rising is not flood is being propogated by the media. Flood is not covered under 90% of standard home and contents policies, in Qld it is only offered by Suncorp.

Anne says:

01:15pm | 21/01/11

Deb, i’m guessing you were not someone who was affected by the floods??  If you lost everything and then spoke to your insurance company to whom you had paid thousands of dollars over the years to and they said ” Sorry we are not giving you a cent” I’m guessing you’d be pretty upset.

Don says:

01:15pm | 19/01/11

I do not have several university degrees, or a masters, just a simple tradesman of 66 years. I have always known that flood insurance does not cover the overflow from a river. It has always been clearly written in the proposal, and in the policy document. But then Koch wouldn’t care about the truth, if he can again chase an ambulance, fire up indignant viewer responce, and improve his ratings. Shame Koch, shame. Now who was it that said something like “you can fool some of the people all of the me, ect”. I am not involved in the insurance industry, never have been, dislike insurance companies for the usual reasons, but have been paid out by them when entitled. Apart from the shareholders (are you one Koch) there are the brokers, agents and thousands of employees, the vast majority decent human beings, not con men, who support their families by this employment. Stop this unfair assasination Koch, try to be fair for a change.

Kika says:

03:11pm | 19/01/11

It means flooding as a result of like leaving your window open during a really heavy rain storm, or a pipe busting and your home is flooded out. It doesn’t mean a riverine flood. If you read the AAMI PDS is pretty clearly maps the difference out. Don’t know about the others, don’t have AAMI insurance but I read the PDS and its written clearly there.

Georgi K says:

01:18pm | 19/01/11

Bernie,
Could you name that insurer???
Some insurer out there will cover flood as a rise of rising vertical water & not water flowing from a more horizontal way, confusing i know… for example it rains heavily in your area water rises due to drains not coping would be covered. Heavy rain in another area and water rising in your area due to on flow build up of creeks, rivers etc etc would not be covered ie in Brisbane the day the river peaked it was sunny and wasnt raining..

Mark says:

09:12pm | 19/01/11

Ganesh,

Its cheaper if you don’t have a claim. If you have a total loss or are held liable for an event, its not.

Insurers transfer risk from the owners of assets or liabilities. You are happy to self insure - well done to you. I for one am happy to spend a little each year to transfer my risk to another party, knowing full well what I am and aren’t covered for (yes I read the policy wording).

And of course insurers are there to make money - the principal of all capitalist societies. Everyone knows that. So why don’t you have shares in them…

Kika says:

03:25pm | 19/01/11

No, it doesn’t work that way. If you are smart and have read your policy and understand it’s terms and conditions then you would be prepared for what happens and understand what is and isn’t covered.

Only people who don’t read their PDS, call their insurers or contact a broker will find themselves in trouble.

At the end of the day - if you pay a lower premium, then you may have lower cover. If that’s the case, check your PDS and if you want a higher level of cover look elsewhere.

Bernadette says:

12:11pm | 19/01/11

Excellent comment and makes perfect sense.

Mark says:

09:03pm | 19/01/11

Bernadette, $10,000 fee from a broker for a $30,000 account does not make sense - please provide more information - esp:
did the invoice from the broker show that the amount (not the bottom line) was a Broker/Admin Fee (+GST). If not, its not the broker charging you - its the insurer (for any number of reasons - time on risk, minimum and deposit premiums to name a few).
I too am an insurance intermediary and I charge clients a fee for the work I do irrespective if they take out a policy or not (not 1/3 of the account as you mention but an amount based on my time and resources). They are advised this up front and most are happy to pay as they know they will have a professional looking at complex risks in their best interests, not just trying to get them the cheapest price.

Kika says:

03:50pm | 19/01/11

Hi Bernadette,

I work in insurance and have to interpret PDS’s all day. If it says “It does not cover you for ...... BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO SEA” then I would assume sea is covered. Because a negative negative equates to a positive. You know what I mean? Like if I say “I haven’t said nothing” actually means I have said something. 

Exclusions are written like that. If it’s a ‘write back’ like what that appears to be, then it would be covered. Check with the insurer though. If the call centre person can’t interpret it, ask to speak to underwriting! They are the ones writing the policies!

Bernadette says:

11:10am | 19/01/11

PS: on another note, some brokers are not any better. We pay over $30,000 in insurance for our business and use a broker.  This year we decided to get quotes from different brokers who both came back with quotes.  We chose one and went with it, the losing broker sent us a bill for $10,000 for the work and loss of potential business, which of course we ignored.  How cheeky is that.

Bernadette says:

11:03am | 19/01/11

HI Georgi, it says from:
–  a body of water - for example: a river, lake, dam, stormwater channel or canal, but NOT the sea
The way I read it flood cover covers flooding from a body of water river, lake, dam, stormwater channel or canal, but not the sea.  If I have read it wrong, it goes prove how some people get confused with the wording.  And no, it dosn’t say it covers me for flood, I would have to pay a premium (naturally).  But I have absolutely no doubt, that if I took flood cover with this particular insurer and I was unfortunate enought to experience a flood, the wording in the policy would be read to their advantage a different way to the way most people would read it and it wouldn’t be covered.  I have experienced it before and it took a 12 month fight with an insurance company for a storm damage claim I had because of their wording, of which I won, but goes to show that some insurers will do their best not to pay out. I am not in the Murray River Region, I am in the south of WA.  Thanks for the clarification as when I spoke to the insurer, she could not even clarify it.

Cabby says:

01:50pm | 21/01/11

“Flood cover is not available for towns or properties along the River Murray in South Australia”

Do you live on the River Murray? If you do, no flood cover for you

If you DON’T, and you take flood cover, you are covered for:
Flood means:
•  rain which results in water pooling on, flowing from or failing to drain away from:
–  a body of water - for example: a river, lake, dam, stormwater channel or canal, but not the sea
–  land
–  roads and streets
•  water that escapes or is released from a body of water.

Kika says:

03:29pm | 19/01/11

Bernadette - I don’t believe insurance policies are intended to mislead you. It’s against the insurance contracts act for them to be confusing and most home insurance policies are written very, very simply and clearly spells out what is and isn’t covered. If you have any questions I would suggest calling the insurance company and getting them to spell out themselves what is and isn’t covered.

There should also be a glossary in the PDS which also defines everything in the policy in case there is confusion.

Kika says:

03:16pm | 19/01/11

I work in insurance, and have heard of situations in the past where this has happened where a claim has come up and the insured is not covered for one reason or the other. I have heard of situations where underwriting has agreed to indemnify the claim if they deduct the premium they would collected for the risk for a payout. Because at the end of the day, they haven’t collected a premium for the appopriate level of risk being insured.

David says:

10:23am | 19/01/11

Have you really thought this through ? So someone pays say an extra $1000. Then they get arounf $400,000 in rebuilding and replacing. Where is the extra money coming from ?
When you take out insurance you contribute to a pool of money for claims. The insurance company can invest some to support the business( very hard in this financial climate).
Come claim time ( and there have been a great many latley) the company can draw on this pool and sometimes re-insurance kicks in. This re-insurance however will only pay as per the insurance companys PDS.
To date all these comments have been from speculators. I have not herd from one person who thinks they have been unfairly treated. Media beat up ?

Rod says:

10:21am | 19/01/11

Well said Cody.  We should all have empathy for those caught up in the floods, (not just in Qld but around the country).  Some of the stories have brought a tear to my eye.  But that’s not to say that we should demand Insurance companies provide automatic coverage in flood plains.  I’m pleased that a couple of Insurers do offer cover (for a price) - on that basis the the property owner chooses to pay the premium or unfortunately take the risk (and the consequences). 

A sad example of is my brother-in-law who passed away 2 years ago in his forties and he had no life cover at all.  I have life insurance, income protection insurance, trauma cover, private health insurance, etc etc.  It costs me a lot of money, but in the event that I croak it, my family is covered. 

Michael Pascoe wrote a very good article recently on Planning Authorities allowing slab construction in flood plains.  The old Queenslander being on stilts provided ventilation in summer and protection from flood. 

It continually amazes me that it times of natural disasters, those without home and contents insurance, rely on the goodwill of the community to bail them out.  The poor family who lose their home and contents in a one off disaster (say a fire) tend to get very little support.

If there is anything good to come from this disaster, I hope it’s revision of planning guidelines across the country to better protect people’s lives and possessions.

Rod says:

10:20am | 19/01/11

Well said Cody.  We should all have empathy for those caught up in the floods, (not just in Qld but around the country).  Some of the stories have brought a tear to my eye.  But that’s not to say that we should demand Insurance companies provide automatic coverage in flood plains.  I’m pleased that a couple of Insurers do offer cover (for a price) - on that basis the the property owner chooses to pay the premium or unfortunately take the risk (and the consequences). 

A sad example of is my brother-in-law who passed away 2 years ago in his forties and he had no life cover at all.  I have life insurance, income protection insurance, trauma cover, private health insurance, etc etc.  It costs me a lot of money, but in the event that I croak it, my family is covered. 

Michael Pascoe wrote a very good article recently on Planning Authorities allowing slab construction in flood plains.  The old Queenslander being on stilts provided ventilation in summer and protection from flood. 

It continually amazes me that it times of natural disasters, those without home and contents insurance, rely on the goodwill of the community to bail them out.  The poor family who lose their home and contents in a one off disaster (say a fire) tend to get very little support.

If there is anything good to come from this disaster, I hope it’s revision of planning guidelines across the country to better protect people’s lives and possessions.

Rod says:

10:20am | 19/01/11

Well said Cody.  We should all have empathy for those caught up in the floods, (not just in Qld but around the country).  Some of the stories have brought a tear to my eye.  But that’s not to say that we should demand Insurance companies provide automatic coverage in flood plains.  I’m pleased that a couple of Insurers do offer cover (for a price) - on that basis the the property owner chooses to pay the premium or unfortunately take the risk (and the consequences). 

A sad example of is my brother-in-law who passed away 2 years ago in his forties and he had no life cover at all.  I have life insurance, income protection insurance, trauma cover, private health insurance, etc etc.  It costs me a lot of money, but in the event that I croak it, my family is covered. 

Michael Pascoe wrote a very good article recently on Planning Authorities allowing slab construction in flood plains.  The old Queenslander being on stilts provided ventilation in summer and protection from flood. 

It continually amazes me that it times of natural disasters, those without home and contents insurance, rely on the goodwill of the community to bail them out.  The poor family who lose their home and contents in a one off disaster (say a fire) tend to get very little support.

If there is anything good to come from this disaster, I hope it’s revision of planning guidelines across the country to better protect people’s lives and possessions.

Kika says:

03:19pm | 19/01/11

That’s a good idea. I suggested this too. Nobody would get a mortgage without a broker or Solicitors advice. If you can’t afford to lose it, you need to insure it. But there’s a lot of dodgy brokers out there too who don’t even know the policies they are selling.

Bernie says:

09:27am | 19/01/11

Love to know which insurance company you are with, I am currently looking around.

Mark says:

09:15am | 19/01/11

Bravo Scott - you hit the nail on the head…
I am an insurance intermediary and from my experience all I seem to hear is ‘shop around, shop around, you could save yourself $$’, never ‘make sure you compare policies to ensure what you are getting is what you really require’. The really sad thing is when people listen to the armchair experts (incl. David Koch) and transfer from more extensive (usually intermediated) policies to (usually) cheaper policies offered by the direct market (AAMI / NRMA et al) thinking that the cover is the same… about the only thing that is the same is that both products have the word ‘insurance’ in its title. And they won’t find out unless they have to claim (which a lot don’t- thus propogating the myth that the adviser is only there to rip them off and they can do it better by themselves).
Caveat Emptor at its finest

Andrew says:

10:39am | 19/01/11

What? We should watch an animated superhero comedy film to see what insurance companies are all about? I nominate this as the dumbest comment out of all 395 comments posted here.

KB says:

09:32am | 19/01/11

Wow, using “The Incredibles” as your basis for insurance knowledge. Possibly not the best thing you could have done.

Insurance (health AND general) is very, very different in the US and Australia. Please don’t make the mistake of comparing the two.

Kika says:

09:00am | 19/01/11

You are correct. Insurance companies try their best to save on claims where they can. If something isn’t covered, they won’t pay it. Plain and simple. They aren’t charities and even though you pay a premium, no one is ‘entitled’ to claim because they believe they can. They are businesses just like any other business.

As bad as Kockie says:

10:44am | 20/01/11

“Many people would not even consider whether their house is flood prone prior to buying it”

What? You can’t be serious.

“I believe that flood should be included and the contract priced accordingly”

I look forward to yours and Kochies next rant about how general insurance is to expensive and people should be given flexibility to alter contracts to reduce the cost.

KVS says:

08:09am | 19/01/11

I am sorry but I have to disagree- when we bought we researched the area, had surveys done etc so we know it has never been flooded etc. This was the biggest purchase of our life- why WOULDNT you research it? To insure this purchase I read every detail of my insurance policy and had many questions to ensure that I was covered for what I deemed appropriate. This also includes contents- every time we purchase something (for example we installed a fence) I have it added to the policy.

Sorry but consumers have to have some sort of responsibilty when it comes to their homes, their incomes etc.  The only person who is going to look out for you is YOU (after all you have your best interests at stake) and consumers need to start understanding what they are paying for at the time they pay their policies.

Sarah says:

04:26pm | 19/01/11

Kika: It’s covered under APIA - if it was going to be only to a limit like 20% Sum Insured or $20,000 or something like that, it would state that in the PDS.

Kika says:

08:58am | 19/01/11

I’d check that if I were you. APIA are run by AAMI, which are both owned by the Suncorp group. Call them to ensure that riverine flooding is covered.I have heard of seniors insurance companies having a sub limit of only $15K for flooding if it is covered at all. $15K won’t go anywhere to fixing your house if its flooded

PW says:

11:22pm | 18/01/11

Yes, I would think that a national infrastructure project is a much more worthy use of tax dollars than bailing out those who chose to live in flood zones and neglected to obtain adequate insurance coverage.

PaulB says:

09:34pm | 18/01/11

What on earth are you on about Kerrie?  The NBN makes more sense than flood relief?  You must love the Net.  I’m still trying to work out if you are being ironic.

Brett says:

08:19am | 19/01/11

NTrigg, by your logic every car sold should have exactly the same equipment even if you only spend $10.  Every TV and Computer should be exactly the same.  Insurance policies come with a PDS which tells people what they are getting. It takes about 2 minutes to find your insurance PDS on their website and maybe a further 15 to 20 minutes to read this documents.

fairsfair says:

04:46pm | 18/01/11

Don’t get me started on Storm Financial! Same concept. Enough people band together, and well - it is like it never even happened. The people who spent their insurance money on Smokes, Booze, clothes, movie tickets whatever - (just like the stomers who spent their returns on group holidays and reinvestment) will now cry poverty and someone will swan in and help them. Just like storm financial. A bit of irony in the name and everything.

you have to be kidding says:

10:37am | 20/01/11

“Why would QLD residents not be covered? “

Because it wasn’t a storm that caused the flood genius.

“why should ordinary people 10 blocks from water be denied cover over a difference in terminoligy between “storms, flolod, flash-flood and inundation”

Because those people may want the choice to have it excluded so that they can reduce their premium.

Saskia says:

03:03pm | 18/01/11

Empathy?  Where is the empathy in making the innocent pay for the lifestyle choices of others?

The usual band of suckers pick up the tab… again.

Even Gillard has to get business to do the govt’s work for them.

Where is Brown helping?  And Tim Flannery?

Not Stoopid says:

03:07pm | 18/01/11

I agree whoeheartedly Chris.

Kez says:

03:21pm | 18/01/11

Because they are subject to the Insurance Contracts Act, which places far heavier obligations than could be imposed by unfair contract law.  Don’t believe all the sensationalist clap trap (i.e Kochie et al) you hear.

Daveisthedevil says:

05:08pm | 18/01/11

Sure let’s total our car when drunk driving and expect someone else to foot the bill. Why shouldn’t they if you’ve paid your insurance. Get a brain in your head and start using it.

Lee says:

06:14am | 21/01/11

We have a word for people who write stupid comments from where I come from, but I am sure if repeated this wouldnt get published. Just grow up and focus on the actual argument/debate

David says:

02:32pm | 18/01/11

So if you chose to live where you couldn’t get insurance, you knew the risk and decided it was worth the gamble, right?
At least your decision was based (hopefully) on measuring the risks and weighing up your options. Too many people have ignored the risks and simply hoped it would never happen to them.

David says:

01:54pm | 18/01/11

Who is at fault if you did not fully explain the policy terms and conditions before selling the insurance ?

Bob down says:

03:04pm | 18/01/11

Agreed.
Its statements like this that create confusion.
“What events are covered?”
“Events covered include animal damage, earthquake, escape of liquid, fire and explosion, flash flooding, lightning, riots and public disturbances, storm, sudden impact, vandalism and malicious damage”
A normal person would read this as flooding being covered however if you read into it further it reads like this.
“Flash flooding-The overflow of any lake, river, creek, stormwater channel, canal or anyother watercourse (whether natural, altered or man made), caused by astorm, where the flooding occurs within 24 consecutive hours of the storm having commenced “
Meaning that if its rained and your property has been inundated with 24 hours you’ll be right?
Wrong again.
Because a storm is
“• A violent wind (including cyclones), sometimes combined with thunder,heavy falls of rain, hail or snow; or
• Thunderstorms or hailstorms, sometimes accompanied by heavy falls
of rain or snow.
It is not persistent bad weather or heavy or persistent rain by itself.”
So you are not covered for a “flood” which is termed
“The inundation of normally dry land by water which has overflowed,
escaped or been released from a lake, river, creek, storm water channel,canal or any other watercourse whether natural, altered or man made.Unless the damage is caused by flash flooding, this policy does not cover flood.”
So if it rains hard and there is no strong wind or thunder you are still not covered even if your property has been inundated within24 hours of a rain event.
A flood is a flood.. make it simple and get it right.
It shouldnt matter if it was a water truck travelling on route to a drought affected area has overturned and ruptured on the uphill side of your place of residence. Its still water in your house.

jf says:

02:37pm | 18/01/11

Not so Dan. I want insurance to cover me if I am flooded as a result of many things - burst pipes, heavy rain, overflowing bath from neighbours. However, I am happy to reduce my premium and not be covered for an event such as the one last week.

Andrew says:

02:31pm | 18/01/11

Paul

With genuine respect for your experience, I would still ask the basic question: ‘What does the contract say?’  If that contract is not suitable, then there are many alternative policies or insurers to choose from. Consumers certainly don’t lack for choice or information. As Matthew said, we haven’t seen a case where an insurer has falsely offered flood insurance.  Ultimately it’s the customer that needs to decide if for a mansion or a humble house insurance suits them. Consumer law has crucial role to play in the insurance market, but it cannot totally replace peoples free choice as consumers.

I don’t know why people feel they are covered under an insurance policy when they’re not. I would argue, though, that you cannot separate people’s beliefs from the event, the emotions and the context of this disaster.  Maybe it is cognitive dissonance, ignorance of the specific contract or a class action in the making, but anyone reading a policy wording cannot be in any doubt about what is and isn’t covered.

Emma says:

08:24am | 19/01/11

What a shame Stacey you didn’t think to ask the older people of the area about prefvious flooding and chose to instead trust a real estate agent.
My local real estate agent would sell his own grandmother for a dollar - the lies he tells potential buyers is unbelievable.
I see it as my civic duty to inform the would be suckers that they are about to be taken for a ride by a man with no scruples.
Remember always : Buyer beware!!

unimpressed says:

01:59pm | 18/01/11

I concur. It helps no one to have someone like Kochie making these unintelligent and uninformed comments. It never ceases to amaze me how people like this get on tv and become commentators. How does this happen?! Understanding insurance is simple - you pay the premium you get the cover. You go with a cheap policy and don’t pay the premium you don’t get the cover. Insurance companies hide nothing in their PDS’s…. you can see them online, you can ring to ask questions and just to make sure you have read it they send you a glossy booklet explaining when and when you are not covered. Serioulsy Kochie - time to retire or move on.. you aren’t helping anyone here.

Tom says:

01:47pm | 18/01/11

You seem to forget one very basic point.  Koch stopped being a “finance man” when he became a tabloid/trash “journo” (or “ambulance chaser” as is the official term)

Emma says:

08:13am | 19/01/11

Dear Sandi
You say “say you were told to maintain your gas connection to your house on an annual basis and your house burns down as you forgot to do it one year, and because it wasnt done the insurance doesnt pay you out due to the small print sure you wouldnt just say oh bugger my fault! “
Umm Sandi who do you suggest I blame instead of my own stupidity love, the gubbermint?
Then you say Sandi ” I was part of the clean up with the tsunami in thailand, they dont have any insurance though i bet alot of you donated and felt sorry for them.”
Umm yes Sandi the people affected by the tsunami - just like the people in SE QLD have suffered and the people in the 2009 Victorian bushfires suffered - I have felt sorry for the people of each event and donated money - now sweets what does that have to do with insurance exactly?

Chris says:

02:31pm | 18/01/11

If you stop paying insurance for a month your policy will eb cancelled and when you go to claim you’ll be out of cover.. but sure go ahead then maybe you can write into Kochie and get him to publish an article about how unfair insurance companies are..Oh wait he already did.

Kika says:

01:18pm | 18/01/11

The exclusions are clearly listed in all insurance policies - especially home & contents policies. They are all highlighted very clearly in plain english in the PDS - which everyone receives before they take insurance and after they receive their policy. All PDS are available on all insurance company websites as well.

Daryl says:

01:20pm | 18/01/11

Shane I work in the industry.

Insurers price based on risk. They exclude flood because of the additional price you would have to pay for the product. The policy would have to be priced significantly higher for them to offer that cover. If you see flood as a risk for you (e.g. you live in a flood plain) you can ask for the additional cover but you have to pay for it. And this is not a new thing. Flood has been excluded forever and a day in Australia.

It costs money (a lot of money) to pay these claims. A lot of people would not be able to afford their insurance policy if flood was an automatic inclusion. Therefore it is excluded.

Matthew says:

10:05pm | 18/01/11

Thanks Mark but a few facts you should know.
1. Not everyone requires flood cover, in fact the vast majority of Australia does not.
2. Suncorp is a lot more expensive in floor areas, 30 to 80% more is not uncommon.
3. Other insurance companies offer flood insurance, often with an additional premium.
4. The profit per policy is very low and Suncorp are not taking any new business at the moment so you won’t help them out at all.

Jess says:

10:47pm | 19/01/11

@ Gabber Cat - the difference is that fire and earthquake are automatically covered in many insurance policies so people will be covered. Again - read you book so you don’t get caught out. If you can’t read or don’t understand then call and ask for a better understanding. Ensure that your call IS recorded as proof if the person giving you the information gets something wrong. You’ll just have more evidence in your favour then.

Trent says:

10:30am | 19/01/11

I understand what you are trtying to say but please don’t discount peoples responsibility to understand their legal documents. When yuo seek clarification which I have done on all aspects of my policy you can get the answers you are looking for. Especially if you are using an insurance advisor.People are inherintley lazy and want to not look at their policies until they need them then cry poor or scream ripp of or scam. Sorry but the policy is pretty clear these days written in plain english. The storys you read of insurance companies ripping people off are mainly press beat ups such as what David Kosch is doing here, h is getting the popular vote from a misleading article. You will get what your policy says you are entitled to get, it is after all what yuo signed up to and paid for.Not having taken the time to read it and understand your exposure is your own fault, not the insurance companies. Take Some responsibility for your own well being Australia and wise up!!

ibast says:

01:33pm | 18/01/11

“Who thinks at the time there should be a differnce between flash flooding and gradual? “

When you buy a house in a flood zone your lawyer will discover this through the local council.  In fact the council goes out of it’s way to make it clear and even grades the flood zones.

If you then decide to proceed, despite the warnings, you should be one of those people that understands you flood insurance policy clearly.

So that’s who.

I can imagine those that live in bushland are similarly informed.

Jane says:

10:46am | 19/01/11

Ben,  if it wasnt for that dam which slowed the water going down the river Brisbane would have been hit harder.

Gregg says:

04:11pm | 18/01/11

It held up to about twice its normal rated capacity with water right up to the top of the dam wall and it would have been discharging when normal capacity was reached so do not assume irrelevant stuff for it was progressively storing as much as it safely could of all water running in.
The other option would be to not even allow it to get to the rated capacity, and that would depend on what means if any they do have of releasing water when it is below the rated capacity.
And then in doing that you would be relying on long range forecasts which are not always too accurate.
The last thing you need is politicians or government bureaucrats without knowledge of the system wanting to run it and nor should they be allowed to.
Sadly, Anna is blowing $15M on a commission not needed and being done for PR only.

Tim says:

02:07pm | 18/01/11

Wivenhoe is operated by strict guildelines which are based on thorough studies in the catchment area. Long term or even mid term weather forecasts are extremely inaccurate.
Sure the operating procedures may be changed after this event but I doubt that any mistakes based on current knowledge were made.
Aint 20/20 hindsight grand?

123 says:

12:42pm | 18/01/11

different story if it was your hom I’m sure. people make mistakes all the time. Have some empathy. karma will remember your comments here mate and when it does you’ll remember….this might be happening to me because I didn’t stop to think about how this must’ve made human beings feel, children, the elderly and people like you.

@tokyojack says:

02:47pm | 18/01/11

This is so not true. Did you get them to fix the dodgy work? You are provided with lifetime guarentees on the work when you use the insurer’s recommended repairers. My phone just broke again after being fixed and my insurance company took it back and apologised and are looking at now replacing it. There are also 4 methods for settling the claim which are all mentioned in your policy book in normal sized print if you cared to open your eyes and have a look at it.

David says:

01:47pm | 18/01/11

Jade.  From what you are saying all those who will have their house repaired/rebuilt,contents replaced and cars repaired or replaced have been scammed by the capitalist world.

Here are links to a couple of PDS. I suggest you have a read of them before commenting on definitions.
http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/52627/Household_PDS_-_FINAL.pdf
http://www.suncorp.com.au/sites/default/files/suncorp/personal/home_contents_insurance/pdf/pds_home_insurance.pdf

Dash says:

01:39pm | 18/01/11

Jade, the financial services industry, which includes the Insurance sector btw, is in fact regulated by APRA. APRA is the industry watchdog. All insurance companies in Australia must be licenced by APRA and must comply with their reporting and corporate governance requirements.

ASIC is actually responsible for the Corporations Law in Australia. ASIC is not the governing body for the financial services industry. But every insurer must lodge annual company records including financial statements with ASIC.

After the collapse of HIH, the Howard government significantly increased the financial regulation of the insurance industry and of the banks. This had a significant impact on the level of capital held within the sector. It also significantly improved the quality of insurers balance sheets. The financial services reform act brought down by the Howard government, had a significant role in the recent GFC as the toxic assets held by some overseas banks were largely non existent in Australia.

The APRA regulation of insurers is world leading and is currently being largely copied in Europe. It is in fact, being held up as model legislation. As too, I might add, is the local accounting standard for insurance (AASB1023) which is being largely copied by the International Standards board.

People need to understand that Insurance needs to be economical. That means, you need to be able to afford it and the Insurance companies need to be able to make a profit. If flood was an automatic inclusion, either the insurance company would price the policy such that only a small few could afford it or the company would go out of business in a very short time. Risk and return are at play here. Very simple economics.

Insurance is no scam! It’s a vital part of the economy. Without the capital put up by local and international insurers, the economy wouldn’t function and the government would not operate.

Andrew says:

12:30pm | 18/01/11

Anon - GIO and APIA automatically cover flood.

Fed up by poor judgement calls says:

12:29pm | 18/01/11

GIO is not fouling homeowners. Have you read the policies? GIO has almost no exposure in QLD - and are mostly a NSW brand.

AAMI doesn’t cover flood, but everyone knows it is a budget insurer!

Daryl says:

02:11pm | 18/01/11

Steve, the issue is a little more complex than that. In the event of a catastrophe like this, the bill is picked up largely by the reinsurer. They are the ones who insure the insurance companies. The reinsurer has no relationship with the homeowner.

If reinsurance costs go up, the direct writers may well use that as a reason for increasing prices. Although the reinsurers are largely international players and so this event may not be big enough to impact rates. Reinsurers do tend to be the ones driving direct rates.

The insurance market has been quite soft sice the September 11 spike. Prices have been relatively low and underwriting results quite skinny for the last few years. I would expect prices (particularly for short tail classes like home and motor) were already on their way up.

And it’s not just the floods. Insurers have been hit by storms in Melbourne and Perth as well as the Earthquake in NZ. Sorry but there are plenty of excuses for increasing prices.

David says:

02:26pm | 18/01/11

You forgot to mention sensationalist tabloid journos.

Sally says:

01:51pm | 18/01/11

You forgot to mention mechanics.

Martin says:

03:31pm | 18/01/11

What once was Queensland’s GIO has since morphed into Suncorp. All the states once had their own insurance companies (and banks) but made such a hash of them that they were forced to sell them off to the private sector. The public servants running the show couldn’t run a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a complex financial institution.

I think the best solution is to make it compulsory for all home owners to insure their properties with a mandatory flood inclusion as they do in France. Insurance companies can price policies as they see fit or decline to offer cover if they don’t want the risk. People would simply not be able to buy a property that was uninsurable. Then watch the councils and developers pull their horns in if it looked like they would lose money by building white elephants that could not be sold.

Greg says:

02:50pm | 18/01/11

No thank you. If the government had an insurance company and allowed this coverage at current rates, the taxpayer would have to make up the significant loss the company made. No thank you. I wouldn’t trust this government to organise a root in a brothel!

PW says:

11:33am | 19/01/11

Mate, I live on top of a big hill. Why would I want to insure my property against something that cannot possibly happen?

Cody says:

09:04am | 19/01/11

Well said Rachel. That is exactly my story as well. A bit over $ 1000 for us as well and although we will not be making a large claim still money well spent.

I was actually debating this issue with a neighbour 2 doors down from us less than a month ago. He said he does not pay the extra as people in areas that do not get flooded don’t have to pay so why should he. Um, because you live in an area that can theoretically be underwater and it is not the job of others to pay on your behalf….

I also did what you did and increased my excess to a sum I feel comfortable losing and it reduced my premium by a huge amount. I think I am paying less than many people without extra flood cover.

Andrew says:

01:52pm | 18/01/11

I’ve got a number of insurance policies and I can’t say I’ve ever had difficulty interpreting them. They are reasonably straight forward and I would be surpised if any insurance PDS was designed to mislead consumers that they were covered for flood when they weren’t. In fact, I thought it was common knowledge that there aren’t many (if any) insurance policies that offer automatic flood coverage and it is something you have to pay extra for. My insurance company doesn’t even offer the cover at all, and it says that in plain english in my policy.

Matthew says:

12:02pm | 18/01/11

Paul, perhaps you could point to an example where an insurance company has claimed they are offering flood insurance in a PDS yet have not come through with paying it out? Take a look at the PDS from any insurance company and it spells out in black and white plain english what is and is not covered and there are examples and definitions of what flood means and what flash flood means.

Why are people now claiming they had cover when they actually don’t? Well that’s pretty simple, people don’t read the PDS, they don’t review their insurance and now they’re desperate because they don’t have cover so they try and blame the big bad insurance company and try to force them to pay out.

The insurance industry is also telling people to put in a claim no matter what the policy says because an independent hydrologist examines each claim to see if the damage came from flash flood or flood.

It’s all very well to throw around claims of breach of contract and so forth but the PDS and other documents are all freely available from the websites of the insurers so they’re not hiding anything and the documents are all legal and easy to read.

Andrew says:

11:49am | 18/01/11

Paul

I would suggest you look at an actual insurance policy wording/PDS (they are readily available on the internet) to confirm if can you can find anything false or misleading in them.

The fact that policy information is misinterpreted (often following the intense emotion of a major uninsured loss) is not proof that insurers have breached their disclosure requirements or acted in a misleading way.  They are simply not allowed to.

The protections provided in the sections of the TPA you are referring to are based on what a consumer could reasonable assume from the information provided to them.  If such information is clear and accurate, then is it fair that it is unreasonably misinterpreted? 

Unlike many other industries, insurance is tightly regulated and, dare I type it, actually performs a societal good. I think we all need to actually look at these documents before assuming that they are full of fine print, shifty definitions, diabolical legal jargon and greedy motives.

jf says:

02:33pm | 18/01/11

” I am an employer of a small business in Queensland and would like to think that I would conduct myself in a better manner than asking homeowners to swim in Moreton Bay to take photographs of their possessions that have been swept away as part of the contract to be paid.”

I am not aware of any insurance company that is asking their claimants to “swim in Moreton Bay to take photographs of their possessions that have been swept away as part of the contract to be paid.”

On the topic of ethical (and legal for that matter) obligations, why don’t you pay the claims then Del. Your ethical and legal obligation to pay claims to any claimant is just as great as the legal and ethical obligation of insurance companies with whom those claimants don’t have flood cover.

Andrew says:

01:53pm | 18/01/11

Del

My apologies if I distorted your use of the expression: ‘...take a stand and send these companies packing into the abyss they deserve’.  That was grossly unfair of me and I should not have indulged in such sensationalism.  Nor should I indulge in such sarcasm now.

Yes, people have suffered a great tragedy and they deservedly have all our sympathy. But I don’t believe it is fair or appropriate to vent this emotion in the form of vitriol against the insurers, including those working on the frontlines of the recovery effort.  I think the reality of the situation requires us to do better.

Del says:

12:45pm | 18/01/11

Andrew, Before you continue to distort what I said, let’s be clear.  The words ‘diabolic and assault on Australian workers’ are your distorted view of what I intended.  Every individual, street sweeper or CEO of a multi million dollar company has or should have ethical standards.  Yes, I can see clearly that many unfortunately did not have appropriate cover and cannot be paid, but the conduct of some companies and ‘some’ of their staff is deplorable to anyone with a moral compass.  I am an employer of a small business in Queensland and would like to think that I would conduct myself in a better manner than asking homeowners to swim in Moreton Bay to take photographs of their possessions that have been swept away as part of the contract to be paid.  Please temper your comments or at least get it right what I have said, sensationalistic postings are not appropriate to those poor souls affected in this tragedy.

Andrew says:

12:11pm | 18/01/11

Del
If you have any trouble with the logic of insurance companies staying in business, I suggest you look into the collapse of HIH. The financial failure of this company brought about massive social disruption to Australian communities and left injured workers without benefits when they most needed it.  There is no justice or morality in this and we are foolish to think so.

Insurers are staffed by ordinary people and they don’t & can’t act purely out ofa singular drive for monetary gain at the expense of the innocent. Even if they were the diabolic individuals that you and Kosh claim they are (and in your case condemn to the abyss) they are required to act within insurance contract law and in utmost good faith. 

These are facts that seem to have been missed in your assault on the Australian workers who are actually trying to help flood victims. That is of course until the logical conclusion of your ignorant crusade to dispatch them all to the abyss or beyond.

Matthew says:

11:57am | 18/01/11

Del, you miss the point. These people did not have coverage for floods, they may have had coverage for flash flood but they are not the same and if you take a look at the PDS available both with your insurance policy and from the websites of the insurance companies you will see a plain english document that explains what is and is not covered in a way that anyone could read and understand.

I have yet to see any proof that an insurance company has mislead anyone, a house is the biggest asset most people own and if owners are not prepared to put a few hours a year into making sure they have the correct coverage that is something that they have to live with.

The article is just a populist grab for readers which has backfired if the comments are any indication, a better researched article would show that the insurance companies have done nothing wrong and have tried to make this as simple as possible for policy holders.

jf says:

01:25pm | 18/01/11

” I am an employer of a small business in Queensland and would like to think that I would conduct myself in a better manner than asking homeowners to swim in Moreton Bay to take photographs of their possessions that have been swept away as part of the contract to be paid.”

I am not aware of any insurance company that is asking their claimants to “swim in Moreton Bay to take photographs of their possessions that have been swept away as part of the contract to be paid.”

On the topic of ethical (and legal for that matter) obligations, why don’t you pay the claims then Del. Your ethical and legal obligation to pay claims to any claimant is just as great as the legal and ethical obligation of insurance companies with whom those claimants don’t have flood cover.

James says:

01:31pm | 18/01/11

Del, the ethical obligation of insurance companies is to treat every customer equally. This means that if you pay to cover a risk, they pay the benefit on that risk. If they tell you that you have cover on that risk and you don’t, they still pay. If they do not tell you that you are covered and you are in fact not covered, they have no obligation ethical or otherwise to pay the claim.

Logic and common sense should always prevail. It is sad to see these things happen but the fact is that they do happen. No one should sit back and wait for them to happen and then expect help. They should be prepared for the event, be it flood, bushfire, theft, etc. Make sure your insurance policy covers it or find one that does.

With that said, there should be more insurers offering simplified flood cover either as standard or an optional extra. If you can’t find an insurer to cover you, speak to an insurance broker.

TheRealDave says:

01:23pm | 18/01/11

Hindsight Brett?

Or History?

You don’t need hindsight when you live/build in an area that tends to flood every few years.

Andrew says:

12:48pm | 18/01/11

Del

I’m not sure I follow any of your logic. What difference does it make if the car is stolen, hailed upon or abducted by aliens?  Brett raises a good point, one that your irrelevent reference to psuedo-science seems to avoid.

Insurance companies are big (they have to be to do what they do), but they simply don’t have endless cash reserves to assist everyone in everycase.  Maybe they should and abandon all their fully insured clients along the way.

Del says:

12:09pm | 18/01/11

Brett.  Last time I consulted science, car thieves were not formed by nature, almost certainly by nurture (nature/nurture) so I find the comparison confusing, however, everyones view should be respected, so I will waddle off and continue to be involved with the plans of my rellies to to visit the Lockyer Valley on the weekend to see if we can help in anyway.  My adult duaghter and her family spent last weekend cleaning Brisbane houses and I am very proud to say she has been very proactive in fund raising efforts.  Thats what this is all about, helping people in these tragic times, not ‘fine print’ or mega companies outrageous ethical standards, but that’s only my opinion, and as stated I respect your right to yours.

Brett says:

11:42am | 18/01/11

Del, hindsight is wonderful.  Can I ask you a question?  If I don’t have my car insured for theft and it is stolen can I then ask my insurance company to cover me?

Del says:

11:09am | 18/01/11

Hindsight is a wonderful thing James.  Clearly you were not affected by the floods.  What would you say re the ethical obligations of insurance companies.  If they have none, that closes the topic and tells all that is needed to know.

Tom says:

08:06am | 19/01/11

@Naren, what a piece of envy-ridden gratuitous nonsense. People have more money than you so they must be thieves? Sheesh!

ian says:

02:41pm | 18/01/11

The Whinging milionaires are the ones who usually provide jobs for the less business minded whinging millions, Sure the goerment can setup a disaser relief fund like the US did for Katrina, but again where does that money come from etc and will you be willing to pay for it. So if i bought a nice car which u lent me the mone for then i parked i in a crime prone area and it got stolen would u say thats ok you don’t hae to pay me back? if yes is your answer can i borrow some money from you????

Del says:

11:18am | 18/01/11

Perhaps the staff that lose their jobs could take up swimming or become coroners. Clients are asked to ‘photograph goods’ prior to giving them the heave ho.  Well many peoples ‘goods’ are bobbling aroung in Moreton Bay or tragically are under the bodies of the deceased.  Give me a break. !!!!

@Greg says:

05:02pm | 18/01/11

Greg - you are a joke! People are allowed to make a fully informed decision but choose not to. They don’t want to listen/read the information provided. There is no small print. What about all those times insurance companies pay for events that are not covered? Oh that’s right - you never hear about it because the media can’t possibly print something nice about what they do. Trust me, almost every insurance company does ex gratia claims (covers events not covered) you just never hear about it. Best you keep your head in the sand.

Yeah right says:

10:26am | 18/01/11

Greg your agereement with Kochie’s point about being fully informed is a joke - his point “The reason is the small print in their policy (be honest, how many have actually read that bit?) ” kinda goes against your argument of people being full informed huh?

Grow Up says:

11:55am | 19/01/11

So no-one is responsible for insuring for what they need hey? You want competition in the market place and you have it. Not all insurers insure for the same thing but they are required to let customers know. If customers won’t listen then they can choose to read the book instead. The get the book either way though. If they choose to also not read the book then they have no-one to blame but themselves. They all want a cheap price but aren’t prepared to spend a little time making sure they have what is right for them. It’s just like going to store to buy a TV. Then you complain because you bought the cheap one and didn’t get all the bells and whistles. Only difference is there is no physical product with one and there is with the other.

Lee says:

10:45am | 18/01/11

@ Terry- Good for you Terry- when you go to your new insurance make sure you read your PDS and ask for clarification should there be anything you dont understand.

Chris says:

03:36pm | 18/01/11

Rot! Act of God has not been in a General Insurance policy in Australia for more than 30 years! Agree war damages, biological or nuclear events, riot and civil commotion are generally excluded, with the humorous inclusions of “space debris”. but Act of God? No for many decades.
I will eat my shoes if anyone can find me a link to a current product disclosure statement that has exclusions for Acts of God, I’ll even take vis major - the latin term.

Andrew says:

12:52pm | 18/01/11

Thanks Astounded.

Sorry, I should have put a rhetorical question mark at the end of my question instead of a normal one. 

I’m not too worried though, I’m not religious so I should be safe.

Astounded! says:

11:44am | 18/01/11

For Andrew.
Insurers are no longer allowed to “reject claims” under Act of God.

Billy Conolly says:

10:01am | 18/01/11

Jules Myers: You’re going to sue one of the world’s biggest insurance companies?
Steve Meyers: Well, apparently I wouldn’t stand a chance - I’m suin’ God.

Steve Meyers: So if God does exist, the Churches must be liable.
Anna Redmond: And the churches can only win the case if they prove God does not exist.
Steve Meyers: Do you want to tell them?

Damn right! Damn the insurance companies, let’s sue god!

Andrew says:

09:55am | 18/01/11

Hey Tripper Smurf , can you tell me which insurance policies actually exclude acts of god?

Brett says:

09:57am | 18/01/11

Andrew, claims are not complicated and neither are definitions of what is a flash flood or a flood.  People are ignorant and belive that it will never happen to them so why worry about it.  To then expect government and insurance companies to bail them out is silly.  People have freedom of choice with insurance companies, if they choose a company that does not cover floods then while I sympathise with them it really is no ones fault but themselves.

fairsfair says:

12:52pm | 19/01/11

John, you can never be insured for absolutely everything. The PDS is continually updated and reviewed - why? Because an event has cropped up that has never been thought of. They are the claims that are fought by a broker. No way could I sit and fight a flood claim for a Brisbane client at the moment - because they either have cover or they do not.

What Queenslanders are facing at the moment is not nasty insurers but the fact that but the fact that they didnt’ have the required cover which would have been as clear as the nose on their face. Flood cover is flood cover. THIS is something that BROKER can help you with and explain to you at the time you take out your insurance. There is a vast difference between a broker and an insurer - I am not sure you have taken that away form my initial comment.

You example makes perfect sense to me, but there is no point even interpreting that for you are you have made your mind up.

Far out!

john says:

06:41pm | 18/01/11

@rev…for a start if your suggesting an insurance policy is a’ legal document’ then that is funny.

Secondly if you can’t see the paradox in a broker selling insurance to a client then having to battle for a claim, then you don’t understand the meaning of the term ‘insurance’. Obviously from your point of view we all buy insurance with a view to expect to battle it out when time comes for a claim?

Oh dear here we go again, this time its paradoxes in the making of your own doing, you said…..
“And as for Queenslanders facing insurance issues at the moment…we’ll see what comes out in the wash.  But I’m hardly going to have any sympathy for someone who couldn’t be bothered reading their policy to determine their correct level of flood cover.  Anyone who knows their arse from their elbow is aware that water damage is an insurance area which requires attention”....so there are no paradoxes in insurance ‘legal document’ policies either?
As an example here’s a line that might sound familiar:
Your are covered for Flood, except where:
a)the flood event occurs 24 hours after a storm
b)where the flood event occurs that it is not part of a natural course of a river blah blah.

You can’t see the paradoxes here either?

Rose colored glasses perhaps?, you don’t have to look hard to see that we now live in a world that has paradoxes engineered in every fabric of society regardless how obvious or subtle it is. Why… because its NOT ILLEGAL.

The eventual outcome is irrelevant.

Rev says:

05:13pm | 18/01/11

@john - if you’re suggesting that a legal document such as an insurance policy will be interpreted in the same manner by different people, then you’re off the planet.

I’m not saying that insurance companies don’t screw people over - I was merely referring to fairsfair’s example you quoted,  where he/she had a win.  But hey, one man’s paradox is another man’s reality.

And as for Queenslanders facing insurance issues at the moment…we’ll see what comes out in the wash.  But I’m hardly going to have any sympathy for someone who couldn’t be bothered reading their policy to determine their correct level of flood cover.  Anyone who knows their arse from their elbow is aware that water damage is an insurance area which requires attention.

john says:

02:09pm | 18/01/11

@rex..to help you find the paradox…..

’ you insured your client then had to fight for a claim on behald of a client’

So you insure your client to fight for a claim?, That is not the definition of insurance.

How insurance should ALWAYS work:

1. Broker sells insurance to client.
2. Client makes a claim.
3. Insurer pays claim.

How it currently works for many:

1. Broker sells insurance to client.
2. Client makes a claim.
3. Insurer rejects claim.
4. Broker fights for client and claim rejection is overturned.
5. Everyone wins except the big bad insurance company.

How it also currently works for many:

1. Broker sells insurance to client.
2. Client makes a claim.
3. Insurer rejects claim.
4. Broker fights for client and claim rejection is NOT overturned by self  
imposed insurance panel..
5.The big bad insurance company is the big winner.
6. Goes to court and the insurance company can afford bigger and better lawyers and the insured goes broke fighting them.

The above is what many queenslanders are up against.

Rev says:

12:58pm | 18/01/11

@john - where is the paradox again?

1. Broker sells insurance to client.
2. Client makes a claim.
3. Insurer rejects claim.
4. Broker fights for client and claim rejection is overturned.
5. Everyone wins except the big bad insurance company.

fairsfair says:

12:21pm | 18/01/11

Well I am sorry for your bad experience John, but no need to get so personal with me.

I guess I am a hypocrite if chosing to leave an industry where you genuinely invest your emotions, time and effort (witness people’s hardship) only to be spoken to like an utter piece of crap and called a little C word when you don’t live up to unrealistic standards like getting someone car fixed for them within 3 days.  It was a bit tough and it wears you down. There aren’t many people who can do it and after 2 years I was not one of them. Unfortunately even thought he majority of things go swimmingly it does not outweigh the bad when people are so harsh.

I am genuinely sad to hear that you lost everything John, but you can’t make sweeping generalisations about an industry to which you only have a minority experience. The bottom line is that they can’t decline your claim without it being as clear as the piece of paper that it is written on. If you were mislead by your broker or they supplied you incorrect information, too right - they deserve to have their asses sued off.

I just hope you realise that there are a lot of good people out there in the mix. I am sorry you never met them. I respect that this is your opinion and I am again sorry for your hardship - nobody deserves to be deliberately mislead.

grumpy says:

12:00pm | 18/01/11

One of the problems is the way in which we obtain Insurance in the first place. Most people will look on the internet for the cheapest, and then either sign up on line, or over the phone. By the time the policy arrives, other matters have taken a priority, the policy doc may get a cursory glance before its consigned to the drawer in the kitchen where such documents end up.
I’m not saying this is a good or bad way to buy Insurance, but simply this is what happens.
Back in the day, we would speak to a broker, who probably also looked after our life insurance, car insurance etc, and had a vested interest in keeping us as a customer, and therefore providing sound advice, which we could either heed or not.
I understand the time pressures etc that most are under, and if you’re buying the insurance because you are buying a home, trying to juggle all the things that need doing, plus working to earn the money to pay the bills at the same time is not simple. Perhaps using a broker would actually save time and money?
( and no, I’m not in the business, just an old fella whose been there!)

john says:

11:31am | 18/01/11

@fairfair
You state,

“I actually left because it was so hard to battle attitudes like yours, when it is simply not the truth. I took great pleasure in fighting an insurer on a claim and obtaining a positive outcome for my clients. It was very rewarding.”

Unbelievable, paradox here fairfair, you insured your client then had to fight for a claim on behald of a client, smell of hypocrisy here.

Too right that is my attitude towards insurance companies, year after year of paying 10k the insurance company slightly altered my policy until I was left insured, losing everything after an unfortunate event few years ago. Ive seen first hand the crooks in the insurance industry. The biggest joke is the mediation panel made up of the very same crooks that work in the industry. To hell with the lot of you tared with the same brush.

Tell those Queenslanders how great the insurance industry is, and as far as insurance goes, stick your defence of the industry where the sun doesn’t shine.

fairsfair says:

11:07am | 18/01/11

Sorry John, I disagree. The majority of Insurance Brokers out there take pride in their ability to offer a service to their clients. I no longer work in the industry and have to say I actually left because it was so hard to battle attitudes like yours, when it is simply not the truth. I took great pleasure in fighting an insurer on a claim and obtaining a positive outcome for my clients. It was very rewarding.

I acknowledge that there are good and bad in every industry - but the insurance sector gets a bad wrap because people do not have the desire to understand it. Business could not function without them.

Contrary to what people think - Brokers do not have vested interests in major insurers and actually thrive on the challenge of battling them. It is one of the only real challenges of the job. Otherwise it would just be the human form of iselect. There are so many options available to people that are not advertised to the direct market.

People don’t think they have the ability to ask questions or negotiate the terms of their agreeement. You can. A broker is the perfect avenue to do so as they do not have their finger in one particular pie and they want your business to protect you - not to get the numbers up and plump the budgets of any shareholders.

The other option, is to research the industry. Get some knowledge behind you, be prepared to invest the time and be your own Broker. You will be amazed at the amount of money you save. Unfortunately though - that does not mean just getting quotes from CGU, QBE, Suncorp and AAMI.

john says:

10:46am | 18/01/11

@fairfair, we both know asking punch to obtain an insurance broker to feed us more garbage is a waste of time, we both know the businesses like the insurance industry, used car salesmen and politicians are by design going to baffle & razzle dazzle us with bullshit and will pile on the misery, so those affected just give up and cannot push back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbxhYxOHMVw&feature=related

Gary says:

09:43am | 18/01/11

You could also include AMP General Insurance in the list of insurers covering flood. They are part of the Suncorp Group as well.

Hydro says:

11:08am | 18/01/11

Yes Wet can confirm it rained very heavily in the weeks leading up to the flood, incl some pretty nasty storms. These all helped fill up the respective catchments.
However, it stopped before the flood as could be seen on Wednesday’s TV coverage. Thus, it was a slow ‘rising’ flood, with water moving up from the river. Comare this with toowoomba where it was belting down rain at the time of their flood hence causing a flash flood (water moving sideways quickly). This was the point i was trying to make.

Wet says:

09:42am | 18/01/11

Actually hydro, I was in Brisbane for three weeks and left 4 days before it flooded and for the three weeks I was there it only stopped raining on three days. I am told by my family who I was visiting it had been raining for many days before I got there.

In fact two weeks before I came down there was a massive storm that ripped up trees and caused power lines to fall. My parents were out of power for three days. When I got there because of the continuous rain you couldn’t walk outside without wearing gumboots.

Emma says:

10:09am | 18/01/11

I once had a travellers insurance claim denied on the basis that the “water damage” (to an expensive camera) was not actually “water damage” but rather the result of a “meteorological event” (that is, rain) which was not covered.

I read my policy.  I assumed water damage meant “any damage caused by a couple of hydrogen molecules attached to an oxygen molecule”.  Stupid me.  Insurers rely on their clauses being so specific as to get them out of claims, while using terms which imply much more extensive coverage.  I am not surprised that there will be people caught out to find out that while they had flood coverage, they had the wrong type.

Robert Stewart says:

10:12am | 18/01/11

........profits of the insurer

Well actually.... says:

10:04am | 18/01/11

Robert - in response to “The problem is the actuaries that write the policy for the insurer”.  Underwriters are the ones that ultimately write a policy

Sam Chowder says:

08:48am | 18/01/11

Robert - do please go on

Yoda says:

10:33am | 18/01/11

I am always concerned when there are government bodies, state and fedeeral, urging people to “donate”. How much goes straight to the Labor govt coffers for the next election?

Nil is correct says:

04:42pm | 18/01/11

@Super D - Nil is correct. Health insurance and general insurance are covered by entirely different and separate laws. General insurance may not change the policy mid term if it is to the customer’s detriment - they must wait until the renewal. I believe health insurance is different as mentioned previously - they do not fall under the same laws.

Super D says:

09:44am | 18/01/11

@Nil, this is why they do it by a letter seperate to the renewal.  They then don’t need to specifically inform you again of the policy change at the renewal.  There should be a requirement for a positive acknowledgement if any changes are proposed during the policy or at renewal.  We had a similar situation arise with our health insurance.  When my wife and I took out our health insurance one of the key areas we examined in great detail was maternity cover.  We were informed we had full coverage and all we needed to do was phone them once my wife was pregnant to let them know and it would all kick in.  Anyway three years later I phoned the insurance to let them know we had a little one on the way and was informed that we had no cover for maternity / pregnancy.  Apparently I had been sent a letter at some stage notifying me that we no longer had maternity cover though I have no recollection of this and am usually fairly thorough when it comes to paperwork.  Needless to say I went ballistic and pointed out that they’d been rebating fertility treatments for two years and there was no way I would ever have agreed to drop maternity cover for $5/month or whatever it was.  Eventually sanity prevailed and our cover was backdated so all was fine.  I was actually a little disappointed at how easily they caved as I thought we’d make a great story for A Current Affair or Today Tonight.

The moral of the story is to read everything your insurance company ever sends you and that in my benevolent dictatorship insurance companies would not be able to drop coverage without a positive acknowledgement from the insured party.

Nil says:

09:06am | 18/01/11

@ Mr Pod, you will find that they are not allowed to make a change mid policy. The whole thing about being “Federal laws covering unfair contracts” is an absolute crock of sh*t. They don’t come under this becuase they come under stricter laws of the Insurance Contract Act 1984 and the Financial Service Reform Act 2001. What you will find is they may try to make this change but the change will not be legally binding until you have renewed the policy next year.

Mikej says:

09:37am | 18/01/11

There is NO fine print people, hasn’t been since the mid 70’s. There shouldn’t be 1 literate adult in the country who believes flood cover is standard. This would exclude Sunrise watchers, of course.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

05:33pm | 18/01/11

Matt, have you ever bought a car? Rust coered up? In what century was that? It’s his job to sell extras & you can just say no. By law they have to tell you what is available, extended warranties etc because consumers have complained when the car broke down out of warranty that they weren’t offered it. Sounds like you are well balanced bloke with a chip on both shoulders. If you are scared of being manipulated stay away from women & ministers of religion not to mention small kids. Finally I suggest you man up & take responsibility for your own decisions

Matt says:

04:07pm | 18/01/11

Hmm Robert. By trying to convince you that you need their overpriced extras and/or accessories. By pushing forward the insurance companies that give them the best commission (not the best prices for the customer). By telling you ‘dont worry mate, I’ll look after you and get you a real discount’ and then giving you a shoddy discount but trying to convince you that it’s a once in a decade steal that you MUST accept today or it will be gone forever. By glossing over rust, engine problems and other serious defects in used cars. By generally using the sales techniques of reading your signs, pretending to be your friend and pressuring you in an endearing way to purchase the most expensive car that you could walk away with.

But that’s the world, everyone is trying to rip you off. I mean, why else do you think these people buy $3000 computers nowadays? A $3000 computer buys an outstanding gaming machine with two top of the line graphics cards and a six core processor, but people will buy computers at that price to ‘get on the facebook and the email thing’ because the sales people tell them that’s what they need and they don’t know any better.

Sorry mate, I think it’s you who has a twisted view of life if you’re not aware of the simple fact that we’re all trying to rip eachother off. It doesn’t mean you have to be hostile, but you gotta be sensible and a little sceptical whenever you hand over your money else you might just find you are not getting what you need or expect.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

10:48am | 18/01/11

Sally you have a very twisted view of life, you say that when you buy a car that the salesman will try to rip you off, HOW? ? ? The car will have sticker price that the dealer wants for it, the salesman/woman’s job is get as close to that as they can (good business sense) it is up to you to negotiate a better price, I would suggest if you enter a show-room with the attitude you display here, you’ll get a crap deal, remember if you are negotiating anything, honey will beat vinegar every time

HappyCynic says:

12:56pm | 18/01/11

@Ray, my understanding of Suncorp’s flood policy is that they do price it based on the individual’s home.  Obviously according their maps you live in a floodzone and there would probably be historical evidence to back this up.

Tough break but if you argue your case enough you may be able to prove otherwise.

fairsfair says:

09:26am | 18/01/11

Ray, I would suggest you consult a Broker. There are many “specialist” and “boutique” insurers about (that don’t spend their client’s premiums advertising about how they automatically cover flood) that will rate your house and your house alone. It may not be as expensive as you think. Broker fees are generally 5% of the base premium (you may be looking at a couple of hundred dollars maybe and they are negotiable) but you may find it is cheaper than the direct market anyway. It is a broker’s responsibility to put this in front of you black and white. If you leave there with confirmation that you have flood cover - you do. Even if they are wrong, you can claim off the broker because of their F* up - unbelievably, they have insurance for that

PatC says:

01:38pm | 18/01/11

To add to Marks comment…
In many older parts of our coastal cities the stormwater systems actually have less capacity downstream than upstream. They were build to old standards (or no standards) and/or upstream development wasn’t considered. There aren’t too many photo ops for politicians in stormwater upgrades so they are a low priority issue for most Councillors and as long as the stormwater system works most of the time they are generally forgotten about.

Mark says:

09:51am | 18/01/11

As I understand it,  the main issue is ACCC regulation that prevents insurance companies ‘colluding’ to reduce competition by having a standard definition of flood.  The other issue is the difficulity of defining when water ‘comes down’  as opposed to ‘rises up’.  The main example being heavy rain-fall which overwhelms street drains and ‘rises up’  into your property.  This issue is affecting more and more people due to up-hill and infill development. This development increases the hard surface area (roofs,  roads,  car-parks,  etc) which increases peak run-off. The older drainage infrastructure down hill can not cope with this peak run-off thus creating flash floods in areas which previously had no problem.

Elphaba says:

11:38am | 18/01/11

@Tim, the popularist crap he goes on with is the reason I don’t watch Sunrise.  He wails about the injustice doled out to ‘the battlers’, when in reality, he makes a cushy salary and wants for nothing.  He doesn’t care.  He’s just looking to score points.

He’s a fake, a phoney, and now apparently, know jack about finance.  Anyone who takes his advice needs their head examined.

Tim says:

11:02am | 18/01/11

Exactly Elphaba,
David Koch prints articles in the newspapers and talks at length about financial issues on Sunrise. Surely he of all people should be on the other side of the fence on this issue.
Instead he has gone the ACA/Today Tonight route of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Elphaba says:

09:20am | 18/01/11

@ibast, lol, thanks.   Just basing the observation on his bio, however I wouldn’t take financial advice from him if I had a gun to my head.

ibast says:

08:48am | 18/01/11

Your wrong Elphaba.  Koch is neither a Journalist nor does he have any real financial knowledge.

He’s a TV personality who seems to have an interest in finance, but clearly lacks the intellect for the task.

I don’t blame you for feeling a touch stupid however.  I felt the same when watching channel seven’s coverage of the floods

NATHAN says:

09:12pm | 18/01/11

well said Tim. I’m an Insurance Broker and see too often those who KNOWINGLY take the cheaper option then find they’re not covered when they could have been, are the ones that whinge the most when they aren’t covered. House/Contents Insurance is a significant outlay, on average more than $1000 p/a. I don’t know of any other consumer product out there where people outlay that sort of money without knowing what they are actually getting - seems insurance is “excluded” by virtue of ignorance!  Your fire example just goes to show, it’s the people who choose not to insure who are the first to put their hands out for assistance. The fires recently in Vic just show how unfair the fire levy is on insurance.  ONLY those people who are prudent enough to insure actually pay to fund the fire brigade - those uninsured pay nothing but still benefit from their service when required!

Tim says:

10:51am | 18/01/11

Actually ALT,
my house burnt down in the Canberra fires in 2003 so life is that black and white for me.
I was fully insured and got everything back. Others who saved money on not fully insuring their houses complained to the government and got assistance simply for being tight and stupid.
I think the difference between a short term overloading of the storm water system causing local flash flooding and a river rising and filling a flood plain should be self evident.

Seamus says:

09:26am | 18/01/11

In 74 my life was caked in mud and worse, really…are you sugesting that people don’t get good advice on the most significant purchase in their life…?

I do have great sympathy ...but only in the context of a punter at the races…if you gamble - you may lose… like floods that’s life.

NATHAN says:

09:03pm | 18/01/11

I’m from NSW and beleive me, we all hate gus gould too (-;

I’m not sure it’s fair to hate insurers, but totally agree with everything else you say. yes I’m an insurance broker and probably see 9999 out of every 10,000 claims paid without any issues at all - it’s when these things happen that people like Kochie move away from being a financial expert to a ratings seeker - absolute popularist garbage

Hydrologist says:

09:21am | 18/01/11

Just to clear something up, while there was a flash flood in Toowoomba, that water travels WEST towards the Condamine.  Water from Toowoomba did not flood Ipswich.  Water from Helidon and Grantham did.

And yes while Grantham and Helidon experienced flash flooding (which may still mean they’re not covered) the fact that it ‘proceeded downstream’ means that it was no longer flooding without warning…Ipswich had warning.

WetinQlD says:

08:42pm | 19/01/11

@ notSue its actually $200 million that suncop needs to pay before they can claim on reinsurance, read any news acticle recently published about them and the floods and you will find it…Yes they are a larget company and yes they can spread the risk, but that is still alot of shareholder money that has to be paid out before they get anything back, if they get it all back

Bill Door says:

10:46am | 18/01/11

@notSue

You make a very good point. Customer loyalty and possibly a mass exodus from other insurers to them will be a good thing.

notSue says:

08:52am | 18/01/11

Don’t worry, they will. They will have spread the risk through reinsurance internationally. I last heard they were responsible for around $90 million of the catastrophic claims, anything over that will be covered b\y the reinsurers.
Also, although they will take a large financial hit now, because they’ve covered for flooding, they will be assured of massive customer loyalty and a whole lot of possible new custom next time around .Although inertia tends to make people stay with an insurer, if Suncorp is one of the only companies assuming the risk in QLD they have a captive audience, so to speak! Their reinsurance will rise, but not by enough to be prohibitive to premium pricing or so I’ve heard.

Emily says:

06:16pm | 21/01/11

@ Sean, sorry but Missy is correct and you are incorrect.  Suncorp offer automatic flood cover in all their Home and Contents policies for other states other than QLD.

There is no such thing as a ‘Flood Option’ in a Suncorp policy anymore - it is an automatic inclusion and has been since 2008.  Suncorp offers this policy in QLD, NSW, VIC, WA & NT.

Check the Classic Home and Contents PDS online.

Sean says:

02:14pm | 21/01/11

@ Missy, if you do work at Suncorp then I strongly suggest you use the internal directory to speak to either Mike Sopinski or Jamin Smith, both of whom can confirm for you that Suncorp only offers automatic flood (riverine) cover in Qld. While it may indeed offer flood (riverine) cover elsewhere in Australia, like all other insurers it is not automatic. They are the facts, something your very company’s spokespeople have been saying this week.

DG says:

01:33pm | 19/01/11

i agree Sean.
The article is emotive and is a bash session for your business- and Mr kosh is irresponsible writing what he writes

Missy says:

11:23am | 19/01/11

Thanks for the advice sean but considering I’ve worked in insurance for Suncorp since before this was introduced I think I have a pretty good idea of what “the facts” are.

Judy says:

04:20pm | 18/01/11

Michael, my NRMA insurance policy for NSW automatically covers all flood types. The premium changes depending where you live.

Sean says:

03:33pm | 18/01/11

@ Michael - spot on. The cost to conduct your own flood mapping analysis is astronomical, Suncorp (in Qld) and NRMA (in NSW) were the only companies with enough market share to justify it. Oddly enough, many of the people who desperately need flood insurance now can’t afford it in Qld - that’s the issue industry and Govt need to address.

@ Missy, Suncorp only offers automatic flood cover in Qld, nowhere else. Check your facts.

@ DG, I do work in insurance and right now it’s not very easy. The heart feels so deeply for all those impacted, but look at the (by comparison) minor flooding in northern Vic in September… claims were denied there and the decisions were largely accepted as valid and without argument as there was not the same emotional toll attached.

If you are dealing with an insurer at the moment, please remember they are people too. The call taker rarely has the authority to say “yes” to your claim and they’ve been speaking to people just like you all day, so please keep that in mind if you get the urge to dish out some verbal abuse.

Missy says:

12:46pm | 18/01/11

Suncorp automatically covers flood anywhere in Australia and their premiums are largely based on where you are living.

DG says:

12:31pm | 18/01/11

Well said Sean

good on Suncorp in Queensland and you have hit a proverbial 6 with your comments and it sounds like you are in the insurance industry

Michael says:

10:57am | 18/01/11

Spot on Sean (Well almost). Suncorp’s flood cover is automatic. NRMA offer it but it isn’t automatic, the customer chooses to take it or leave it. And with NRMA, it is priced to the individual house. I think with Suncorp they spread the risk so everyone’s premium went up at least a little (but not 100% sure on that).

@K - The reason NRMA can do it in NSW is they spent years analysing their own data along with what they could get out of the councils to be able to price it properly.

And Suncorp paid to do their own flood mapping because the coucil data is in no way good enough. No other insurer in Qld has the market share to justify the cost of doing their own study and of course Suncorp won’t just share that information around.

It’s really easy to point the finger at the insurance companies but it’s governments and councils that should be answering a lot of questions

K says:

09:27am | 18/01/11

Sean, if it’s so hard to do how come Suncorp (in Qld) and NRMA in NSW are able to do it?

KH says:

09:16am | 18/01/11

Stop generalising about people - just because I am more left leaning, doesn’t mean I think everyone should pay because some people can’t be bothered to read insurance policies.  Insurance companies are businesses, not charities - that seems to be the general feeling here today.  Personal responsibility is something that seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs lately.  If you don’t get appropriate insurance and things go wrong, its on your head.

PatC says:

01:16pm | 18/01/11

To add to your point about plain English policies. If you still have trouble understanding your policy you can ring your insurance company and ask them. Most have a toll free number. It’s not that hard to take a little adult responsibility.

and more says:

03:16pm | 18/01/11

Further, insurance contracts are excluded from the unfair contract laws are they are governed much more harshly. If the definitions don’t make sense the courts and ombudsman will use what a ‘reasonable person in the circumstances’ position to determine what it means. No other contract is dealt with like this and their definitions are simply what is stated. Insurance definitions are always open for debate based on the ‘reasonable person’ defence.

Sarah says:

03:57pm | 18/01/11

Yes, but it’s also not just home insurance is it, it is exactly the same as any kind of insurance you buy. The greater risk you are, the more expensive your health insurance is. If you have known heart problems, some insurers either won’t cover you, or will charge you extra because it is an existing problem.

And fair enough too, at the end of the day, they’re a business and you’re a risk.

Building on a known flood plain is the equivalent of an existing health problem and if people are really silly enough to not realise what their insurance does and does not cover they should have to wear the cost.

On the other hand, I think the issue here is insurers trying to get out of having to pay because they deliberately manipulate or change the wording of a policy to provide themselves with loopholes.

Eric says:

12:18pm | 18/01/11

Absolutely spot on. A house on a known flood plane is simply uninsurable for flood.
It’s simple mathematics.
Lets say the house cost 300,000 - and the flood is a once in 30 year event. This means just to be able to cover the inevitable claims you must charge at least 300,000/30 = $10,000 annual premium. This is a very simplistic example but it shows quite clearly the problem many insurers face with these kinds of risks.

scotty says:

04:08pm | 18/01/11

“insurance premium is going to be $25000 a year how many would drop the insurance?”

Lots, but the scary thing is that may actually be a legitimate insurance premium.  Look at Brissie, 2nd flood in 37 years, which averages to a cost of about $13,000 per annum for a $500,000 property without considering any operating costs.  There would be plenty of waterfront property worth well over $1m…

Tim says:

10:45am | 18/01/11

correct Eskimo.
When the insurance company tells these people their flood insurance premium is going to be $25000 a year how many would drop the insurance?
Then they will tell the government to “do something” to cover them and everyone else will be forced to foot the bill.

Lee says:

09:54am | 18/01/11

@ Eskimo- I would say you are spot on.

Jane says:

08:28am | 19/01/11

From what I heard on ABC last night, teh insurance companies have been trying for years to get a government approved definition. In 2008 they went to the ACCC and it was rejected.

TimB says:

06:34pm | 19/01/11

Actually Carly it was more a jab at Seano’s constantly immature arguing style. Something I imagine he picked up from dealing with small children.

No disrispect was meant to kindergarten teachers in general.

Carly says:

02:32am | 19/01/11

Tim B - I would hope that you didn’t intend to malign kindergarten teachers and imply that we are either stupid or ignorant.  My team all hold degrees in education and early childhood development - and dislike both stereotypes and discrimination.  And arrogance.

NATHAN says:

08:45pm | 18/01/11

well said Adam, Kochie has taken the popularist line here, and as an economic expert, his opinions totally bemuse me - he knows how to read a balance sheet!

Seano says:

10:49am | 19/01/11

@Jane - I’m not sure that’s true that everyone with regard to time to minimise losses. I heard on the news that people who thought they were going to be ok went from no water to 10 metres in half an hour. By the time many of them registered that they were in big trouble it would have been too late and indeed this is why there were so many tragedies. So is that considered a flood like everyone else or a flash flood?

And again many of your mug punters wouldn’t have known there was a distinction for insurance purposes.

@Tiny Timmy - I don’t know why you bothered, I sure didn’t. You’re ranting on your own champ. *yawn*

Jane says:

08:22am | 19/01/11

Seano I can see how you can say the defintition difference between flash flood and flood is a technicality.

Flash flood - no time to save anything other than yourself

Flood - time to save stuff.

In teh case of most people in Brisbane they had well over 24 hrs to minimise their losses. If they chose to walk away because they were confident that they were covered and would get everything new…once again it was a personal choice.

If people had used that pre-warning to their full advantage their loss should e limited to carpets, cupboards, couches, whitegoods and beds. All photos, computers, momentos and clothing should have been safe.

Essentially in the time frame given only the stuff that is too big for a person to carry and/or fit in a car should have been left.

Most of us move house in less than 24 hrs, we all know we can move a lot of stuff in that time frame, this is why the insurance companies have VERY different definitions for flood and flash flood.

TimB says:

07:00am | 19/01/11

2nd times the charm…

First things first.

“PS. Tiny Timmy I’m sure even now you’re dissecting this post, don’t waste your time, because I wont be wasting mine”

Yes you will. For the same reason you keep responding after each and every post where you claim that you’re ignoring me.  You can’t help yourself.

“So I’m not sure how you can say this thing I have against TimB when clearly it’s the other way around.”

Maybe it’s because you automatically jumped on some poor guy just because you thought he was me. Just a hint of an issue there.

“But how do you have a moniker like “fairsfair” and say this “I am offended by the way that you speak to everyone.” Everyone?”

What so it’s not fair that people don’t see you as the victim you think you are? Let’s have a look at the evidence:

First post of yours to Warren in this very thread”

“You’re either heartless, stupid, a troll or a combination of all three.”

Yep you’re a real charmer. He did nothing to deserve that. The other Tim did nothing to deserve what he got either. There’s many more examples of your rudeness elsewhere on the Punch. It might not be aimed at “everyone” but it’s aimed at an awful lot of people.

I keep telling you you’ve got an attitude problem. Maybe if a few other people tell you, the message will sink in.

“TimB by his own admission follows me around posting hate filled, irrelevant and off topic rants…” blah blah blah.

Not what I said at all. Aren’t you the one that always has a cry when you get misquoted?

I call you out on your poor posts. Thats all. I do the same thing to anyone else I deem deserving. You get more attention because you have a greater number of said posts. You don’t like it, then I suggest you come up with better arguments than you currently have. Oh and try to stand by the ones you do have instead of backpedalling

““You pull TimB up on his ‘claim’ to work in the industry.”

I did not, I merely pointed out that I too have industry”

Yes you did. When you refer to it as ‘my “claim”’ that’s exactly what what you’re doing. You constantly insult my intelligence, but don’t insult Fairsfair’s or anyone elses by trying to deny what you did.

Keep trying to sell us a load though Seano. Maybe you’ll get lucky and someone here will buy it.

Seano says:

05:15pm | 18/01/11

@Scotty – I don’t know about you but I don’t look at ads for things that I’ve already bought and don’t need. I’m not suggesting a bailout. I agree with notSue, buyer beware. But I do think that some insurance companies prey on the ignorance of people or use technicalities to weasel out of their responsibilities. There is nothing IMO wrong with en forcing clearer disclosure.

Seano says:

05:12pm | 18/01/11

@Fairsfair – “Seano - this thing you have against TimB is sad” but by his own admission his TimB follows me about not the other way around, apparently I’m the centre of his universe.  So I’m not sure how you can say this thing I have against TimB when clearly it’s the other way around.

But how do you have a moniker like “fairsfair” and say this “I am offended by the way that you speak to everyone.” Everyone? Give me a break, especially when to my knowledge I’ve only been respectful towards you? I am generally polite to polite people, just don’t poke the bear.

TimB by his own admission follows me around posting hate filled, irrelevant and off topic rants and then gets all teary eyed when he’s not taken seriously on the rare occasion that he makes a lame attempt to contribute. It doesn’t work that way, you reap what you sow and he gets treated with the contempt he deserves and has earned.

“But come off the grass, you can’t be an expert on everything.”

Didn’t say I was. I am though opinionated and I will argue my opinions passionately, if you want to change them then you need to come up with a damn good argument. But please don’t whinge about me having them.

“You pull TimB up on his ‘claim’ to work in the industry.”

I did not, I merely pointed out that I too have industry experience that doesn’t make either opinion any more or less valid.

PS. Tiny Timmy I’m sure even now you’re dissecting this post, don’t waste your time, because I wont be wasting mine.

scotty says:

03:55pm | 18/01/11

Seano, Suncorp advertised their policies as the only ones in Queensland with full flood cover.  If people didn’t want to buy it (or check the flood maps before they bought/rented their property) why do we have to bail them out?

The option was there…

fairsfair says:

02:33pm | 18/01/11

Seano - this thing you have against TimB is sad. I am offended by the way that you speak to everyone. Instead of just sharing your opinion and accepting that not eveyone agrees with it you have to argue like a child. It comes across to be extremely annoying.

Clearly I just need to chillax. Sorry, in the vein of us all being nicer to each other my previous post was not nice. My apologies. But come off the grass, you can’t be an expert on everything. You pull TimB up on his ‘claim’ to work in the industry. You ‘claim’ you have children - you may very well not, but we all believe you. You can’t continually question the integrity of people who may have a differing opinion to you and expect us all to hold hands and skip through the wildflowers together.

Seano says:

02:23pm | 18/01/11

I guess that counts if you call stating the bleeding obvious a contribution. So you go girl,  Please do keep following me about stating the bleeding obvious though, if that’s what it takes to make you feel important.

That said, your main contribution to this converstation remains anti-Seano rants and nothing. But hey I am enjoying being the centre of your universe.

TimB says:

02:10pm | 18/01/11

First post Seano:

TimB says:09:09am | 18/01/11

No Seano, he means people who didn’t check their policy properly to make sure they were covered.

Insurance companies are not charities.

Looks like a contribution to me. But maybe it doesn’t meet your exacting standards. Perhaps I should have thrown in an insult or two like you did to me.

Re. my “claim to work in insurance”. I don’t merely claim, I actually do, but then facts never have had much sway against your beliefs.
It’d also probably be a waste of time to point out that your claims to work in insurance have as much proof behind them as mine do .

“back to ignoring you champ”- This phrase implies you actually started ignoring me. Haven’t seen you follow through on this often repeated and thus increasingly funny declaration yet. Perhaps you’re just as fascinated by me as you claim I am with you.

There, I think those were the main points of that mess you call a post. It was rather jumbled so I think I did rather well deciphering that much.

Seano says:

01:46pm | 18/01/11

@fairsfair - huh? Calm down mate. I didn’t say you were an idiot nor do I think it, there’s been a crossed wire somewhere. My comment about working insurance was a “for what it’s worth” response to you mentioning that TimBs works in insurance. I having insurance industry experience don’t think it either over qualifies or disqualifies anyone from having an opinion.

My opinion remains that to the average bloke who’s been caught out the quality of the disclosure is not good enough. And that further some insurance companies take advantage of this ignorance whilst others go about solving the problem.

Seano says:

01:40pm | 18/01/11

” lol “losing”.”

Yep.

“Hardly. Just on this topic alone you’re being made to look like a fool.”

How would you know? You’ve yet to actually contribute anything to the converstation other than personal digs and to “claim” to work in insurance.

“As for why I follow you around…”

Becasue you’re sad? Lonely? Desperate for attention? Got thing for good looking witty blokes called Sean?

“Consider it a public service.”

LMAO. Lame.

” I’ve taken it upon myself to expose your logical failings to others who may feel compelled to spend time reading your posts.”

And you’ve done this by not actually contributing to the converstation. A brilliant tactic I must say, my dog would be impressed (did I mention it can do tricks too?).

“The more condescending yet substanceless replies you make to me, the easier my job is. So thanks.”

Oh yes hat reminds me, back to ignoring you champ.

  The more condescending yet substanceless replies you make to me, the easier my job is. So thanks.

 

“Consider it a public service. I’ve taken it upon myself to expose your logical failings to others who may feel compelled to spend time reading your posts.”

That would be why you’ve failed to make a single contribution to the actual coversation going on other claiming to work in insurance.

Not smart.

fairsfair says:

01:28pm | 18/01/11

PS: I have a degree, a Masters, Insurance and Contract Law experience, I own a home and have also had to make a personal claim as a result of natural disaster.

You still think I am an idiot - so clearly your little chest beating exercise was hardly worth your time there champ.

**you have punch appeal** inserted for your benefit, in case you don’t quite get the gyst of my comment.

Seano says:

01:27pm | 18/01/11

@Fairsfar - If you read it TimB didn’t actually make a contribution to the conversation (he rarely does), he just having a rant at me (he often does).

Having also worked in insurance and dealt with insurance companies I think there’s a vast difference having the information in the policy and it being clear to the average mum and dad. Also I did point out that imo flood and flash is a BS technicality.

@notSue - to some extent I agree with buyer beware but I also think that your average joe blow buys their insurance assuming that they are insured for flood. As floods and drought are fairly common in this country I think insurance companies should be completely up front about whether people are covered. Also there are companies that have slightly raised premiums across the board to cover flood or make extra charges to be covered clear so it’s not an unsolveable problem.

I just don’t think preying on ignorance is a defence.

notSue says:

01:27pm | 18/01/11

@ Andy J ” If you knew anything about finance and insurance you would know that if any insurance company paid these ex-gratia payments you are talking about they would go out of business leaving thousands of people out of work and even more totally uninsured.”

Rubbish. Insurance companies have to hold huge financial reserves by law, to be able to cover their liabilities. I happen to know of which I speak.  I also note that at least one company is doing so, most likely NOT at the risk of bankruptcy.

TimB says:

01:17pm | 18/01/11

lol “losing”.

Hardly. Just on this topic alone you’re being made to look like a fool. As for why I follow you around…Consider it a public service. I’ve taken it upon myself to expose your logical failings to others who may feel compelled to spend time reading your posts.

The more condescending yet substanceless replies you make to me, the easier my job is. So thanks.

notSue says:

01:05pm | 18/01/11

@Seano. Although I’ve read many protestations here about the plain English requirements being fulfilled in policy contracts, I have also heard that transparency of policy exclusions is often a problem as well. Perhaps the requirements don’t specify font size? *wink* Perhaps it depends on the insurance company also. IF there are issues in that regard , it really is most unfortunate for the customers, I agree. However, ultimately is is still a case of caveat emptor - buyer beware.

@Realist. That’s encouraging news, thank you. Many people will be pleased to hear that at least one company is behaving with some compassion..and an eye on their reputation.  I wonder how their unaffected policy holders feel though.

Seano says:

01:02pm | 18/01/11

My mistake. The tone of the post lead me into thinking I was talking to the intellectually challenged Tiny TimmyB, so apologises to Tim on that score.

Although he did miss my point and steal my joke so I think it’s entirely understandable how I might mix the Tim’s up. After all being dense and humourless are traits most often exhibited by Tiny TimmyB not to mention following me about like a lost dog and also being called Tim also. No not a hard mistake to make.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious to Tiny TimmyB, but one of your insane rants accusing me of the very things you yourself are doing doesn’t actually qualify as a contribution to this or any conversation. Try harder tiny timmyb you’ll get there one day (but I’ll be largely ignoring you till you do, I mean you can only kick a dumb dog so many times before it stops being fun).
PS. Two degrees, a masters and having worked in insurance I’m probably atleast as qualified to comment on the story as YOU, but then…so is my dog (he does tricks as well).

PPS. Has ever occurred to you that the reason you follow me about, rather than the other way around? Is that you’re losing. <emoticon inserted for tiny timmyb’s benefit, he doesn’t get where the jokes are otherwise).

fairsfair says:

12:55pm | 18/01/11

Seano - TimB works in insurance. NoSue appears to actually know her apples from her oranges. Realists employer is too busy tackling the job at hand to sit around and advise you what they are doing so that you feel better about thigns.

I love all the garble that you go on with. My Shedule of Insurance clearly stipulates that my policy does not include a flood extension. It is one of the few things (including policy excess, sum insured etc etc) that actually go on the Schedule (FYI that is the front sheet and is seperate to the bill).

Do some research before you make such wild accusations about an industry that you clearly know nothing about.

Andy J says:

12:42pm | 18/01/11

@notsue, If you knew anything about finance and insurance you would know that if any insurance company paid these ex-gratia payments you are talking about they would go out of business leaving thousands of people out of work and even more totally uninsured.

Either way it is beside the point. Have you ever been asked if you want fries with your burger, said no and later regretted it? That is all this is, people that should have taken an optional flood damage insurance (and were asked straight up if they wanted to) and didn’t because they thought a) it was too dear or b) their house would never flood now have cognitive dissonance. Simple and avoidable

TimB says:

12:23pm | 18/01/11

LOL Seano.

Just FYI that’s another Tim (i.e. not me).  You are copping it from all sides today.

Let’s see what we’ve got here though.

Childish insults- Check.
Assumptions- Check.
Inability to argue the point raised- Check.
Hypocrisy-Check.

Damn. All I needed was for you to make a sweeping generalisation about “conservatives” and I would have won Seano Bingo.

But seeing as you think you can determine who partakes in this conversation or not, lets look at the qualifications, see who’s contributions count for more:

Me- Actually works in insurance.
You- Works as a a teacher. I’m guessing a kindergarten teacher based on the calibre of your posts.

So your opinion on this…not something to be taken seriously I feel.

Thanks for playing.

Seano says:

11:27am | 18/01/11

@Timmy - How sad that you’ve completely the missed the point I was making (again) let alone that you can’t even come up with your own jokes.

Realist says:

11:16am | 18/01/11

@NotSue- the insurance company i work for has donated more than double what the government has, plus ARE making payments to people that aren’t covered for flood….

Tim says:

11:12am | 18/01/11

Ahh Seano
I’ll just cut and paste from you at 9:07am:
“That’s a great argument that must have surely stetched your intellectual capacity Seano, well done.”
The fact that you think “flash flood” is a technicality shows your complete lack of knowledge on this issue. Bye chump.

Seano says:

10:55am | 18/01/11

@Robert and notSue - @Robert and notSue - my problem is that many, many people having actually read the documentation would still have thought they were covered. The insurance companies deliberately mislead and hide that they don’t cover for flood. And even when their policies say they do cover flood they get out of it on a technicalities like “flash flood”. If the insurance companies said your policy does not cover flood you can either shop around or pay x amount more to be covered then that would be fine. My issue with them is the clarity of their disclosure.

I’m sure there are decent, hardworking and now struggling people in QLD who have been completely shocked to find out over the last couple of days that they are not covered for flood, when they’d been allowed to believe they were. And that sucks.

@Timmy - You don’t meet the IQ or age requirements for adult conversation.

Tim says:

10:42am | 18/01/11

actually Seano,
these people paid insurance on policies that specifically excluded flooding from this sort of disaster. I don’t know what good faith your’e talking about.
Is it everyone else’s fault they can’t read?

notSue says:

10:31am | 18/01/11

@ Robert. People who aren’t insured at all are assuming the risk, agreed. However, those who are will be devastated if they’ve been silly enough to make assumptions about flood insurance. I do feel some compassion for them.  Afterall, the average citizen is being asked to donate to the cause, why can’t the corporate world join the party?

Your idea is a good one, however, since it would have to be administered by local councils and overseen by a government body, I think you’d find a lot of resistance to it. I also think it would be opposed on the basis also that although most of us drive cars, not everyone builds in flood -prone area. Why should we subsidise them with our rates? - which, admittedly, is the same argument against ex-gratia payouts. However,  compassion in times of hardship is good corporate citizenship as well. It’s vexed, I grant you though.

Robert says:

10:00am | 18/01/11

Come on- a lot of people simply don’t have insurance of shop around for the cheapest insurance assuming nothing is going to happen - that is the reason that they dont get flood insurance. House insurance should be the same as Third Party insurance for cars and the premimum should be included in your rates. This would solve all the problem we have with fires and floods.

notSue says:

09:37am | 18/01/11

Although insurance companies are definitely NOT charities, there is a solid PR argument for “ex-gratia” payments to be made by them to their non-flood -covered customers, unless they want to lose their custom. Let’s not be naive here about the huge financial reserves they hold either. Most can afford to heed the government and public’s urging and pay out SOMETHING without going bust. They are highly solvent companies.

TimB says:

09:09am | 18/01/11

No Seano, he means people who didn’t check their policy properly to make sure they were covered.

Insurance companies are not charities.

Seano says:

09:07am | 18/01/11

That’s a great argument that must have surely stetched your intellectual capacity Jim, well done.

Jim says:

08:53am | 18/01/11

Wake up Seano

Seano says:

08:04am | 18/01/11

You mean people who paid insurance in good faith to be INSURED from this sort of disaster?

You’re either heartless, stupid, a troll or a combination of all three.

Ness says:

03:10pm | 19/01/11

@Go Bruno, Queensland has been flooding regularly on a yearly basis. Albeit not on the same scale or severity of what we have just witnessed. This did happen 37 years ago so the residents knew of the possibility of it happening again. Given that somewhere in Queensland floods each year, these people should have taken some time to read or ask questions (especially if they did not understand from reading) to make sure they had the right cover. Given that they chose not to take that action, they made the choice not to be adequately insured. Like everyone else, I am truly sorry for their predicament and am doing what I can to contribute, but at the end of the day, they need to take a realistic look at this and realise that the reason they are not covered is because they failed to take the right precautions.

GoBruno! says:

09:02am | 19/01/11

@Ness -  No I am not a tool I found SteveO’s comment highly offensive in light of the devestation people have suffered, to be called stupid at a time when their need is tantamount is horrid - why blame the poor guy who thought he was insured and has lost everything, seriously it is ok to call him stupid? Defies logic and that kind of mentality is repugnant.
In my personal experience I have had an instance where the Insurer agreed to cover damage and then revoked this when the claim was submitted - the event was more wide spread than first thought and as such the Industry decided upon a different tact - despite the clause in my policy and their initial agreement.  They hold all the cards and a claim may be subject to any number of arguments - particularly when the damage is as wide spread as this.  The fact the industry is governed by more than 1600 Laws does very little for those who have learned the hard lesson that their fully paid and considered Insurance Policy is not valid due to some highly ambiguous term or clause. We have countless laws that are tried, tested and interpreted differently as the above thread attests to. Policy inclusion or not, a policy can be interpreted in a different light at the time of claim - obviously for you this is not a situtation you have personally experienced which is terrific for you, however this is not the case for many other poor souls at this moment and they do not need insult upon injury.

Brian says:

02:32am | 19/01/11

Just double-checked, and my insurance brochure (from HBF) includes :

What is a flash flood? A flash flood is a flood caused by rainfall which has fallen in the period immediately before the flooding occured. Floods caused by rising waterways, drains or ground water are not covered by flash flood coverage.

Yes, there was a slightly more complex one in the contract itself (waterways became creeks, rivers, streams, immediately became within 24 hours…), but even that was pretty clear. From memory it was like that in the FAQ’s my father took out for the house I lived in before my current one, too (I like to read), and that was around 2000.

I had a similar argument with an acquaintence who had suddenly found out that their insurance for their car required a hefty when driven by a driver under the age of 25 (which was actually them). They told me ther were never informed of it, which I doubt, and that the contract was far too complex and difficult to understand, and there was no way a normal person would understand the excess. I showed her the table on the second page which put it out as simply as possible. Most (not necessarily all) people who claim the contracts are too difficult to understand are going by the stereotype, and not reading them in the first place because they EXPECT them to be difficult to understand.

Ness says:

03:07pm | 18/01/11

@GoBruno - you sir are a tool. You have no idea what you are talking about. The insurance industry is governed by more than 1600 laws. One of these laws as pointed out by many people on this page is the no fine print. Policies must also be written in plain English. It’s not OK for others to hurl insults but fine for yourself huh? Kochie has done nothing to highlight anything except for how happy he is to jump on the bandwagon and do what he can to boost ratings for his show. I do apologise for the need to use an insult in the opening line but also recognise the need for it to be used nonetheless.

Kika says:

01:20pm | 18/01/11

Not legal advice - but having a broker is a good thing.  It’s the same as a mortgage - only a brave few would go through getting into a legal contract without getting proper advice first.

Go Bruno! says:

12:44pm | 18/01/11

Steve O - “Stupidity is a Choice” my God how rude and I am guessing by your grammar the fine print albeit it bold and underlined may be lost in translation… I guess being a narrow minded, shallow prig is a full time occupation no doubt noned by years of experience? Whilst you sit in your nice high dry home not personally affected by any of this disaster and keep yourself warm at night hurling insults, the rest of the planet knows full well that Insurance policies are legal documents that are often not written in plain english - in some cases as noted above, flood inclusion is undefined so until it is tested many insured will be unaware they are not covered.  Go back to your cave.
And well done Kochie for putting the spotlight on a situation that has been constinually discussed and unresolved for decades perhaps this time after such a horrendous disaster there may be some unified definition for cover across the industry.

Steve O says:

08:51am | 18/01/11

Stupidity is a choice. The so call fine print is really bold and underlined, its hard to not read it. Open your eyes people and read what you buy.

Brett says:

01:24pm | 21/01/11

Yes everyone would pay more for flood cover. Yes it would be based on risk, but the simple fact you would be covered means the insurer’s risk exposure has gone up and hence your premium will go up accordingly. They don’t put the premium down just because you like on the 20th floor and will never be flooded from above or below, just like my car insurance did not go down now that my car is parked in a secure parking garage. They generally don’t care.

Tom says:

04:27pm | 18/01/11

@TChong, I did misread your post. Apologies.

@Warren, socialist lexicon? “Heartless” is one of those all purpose phrases socialists use to puff themselves up for a free lift to the moral high ground. People using the word “heartless” rarely, if ever, contemplate spending their own money, just someone else’s money.

@Doug, “a cold war dinosaur”? moi? ... you have wounded me, Doug.

Tron says:

01:05pm | 18/01/11

Can I just point out there TChong, GIO do cover for all types of flood as they are the same policy as what Suncorp is. Sorry the ‘small print’ you are referring to isn’t really that small and laid out into what is and what isn’t covered.

jf says:

12:09pm | 18/01/11

I spent the two days before the floods helping people to move stuff and the four days afterwards helping to clean out vile, putrid muck - along with thousands of other people. It’s not even close to my job and yet it didn’t even occur to me that I was a hero let alone think that I had to let everyone else know that I wasn’t. Interesting that you did though.

TChong says:

10:07am | 18/01/11

Tom, please read what I wrote, I ws having a dig at Kochie for all talk and no action. I thought it was obvios.
“all talk…” 8:53 am ( what a coincidence) WTF you talking about?
I have activly being involved with parts of the NSW floods, due to my occupation. ( but since thats my work, so I dont claim any hero status)
As for leading the way, I’m pretty sure all talk no action is more than just your screen name.

Warren says:

09:32am | 18/01/11

“socialist lexicon” - What a strange expression. What does it mean @Tom?

Doug says:

09:01am | 18/01/11

Tom, maybe you didn’t read the article, but the point is that premiums would still vary according to the risk of the property being flooded. At least all owners would be fully aware of what sort of flood cover they have, without the semantic definitions of what a “flood” actually is.

And please be aware that if you use the word “socialist” you sound like a cold war dinosaur. You don’t win an argument just by using an -ist epithet.

all talk no action says:

08:53am | 18/01/11

If you have “simpathy/empathy for flood victims” why don’t you pony up then?

Your obligation is just as great as all of those insurers that have not entered into a contract to cover a flood event like this.

Tom says:

08:06am | 18/01/11

Heartless are they? They employ people. Their employees have children, pay off houses, work hard. What a typical deadbeat description from the dead-beat socialist lexicon.

1. How long do you think they would be able to provide insurance if they operated on anything other than business lines?
2. What do you think their premiums would be if they included flood cover?

As a typical ding-a-ling socialist, you are great at “empathising” and scapegoating, but when it comes to dealing in reality, well ....

Toot says:

12:28pm | 22/01/11

Sadly Shane, you are spot on the money.  Even though my house in Brisbane is a few km from the river, it at the top end of a tidal flood zone due to a tiny creek that runs along the back of it.  At the time that I took out my insurance policy, flood cover was simply not avaiable at any price (I did enquire) and so I have consoled myself since with the fact that for my house to be flooded will require a disaster of such epic proportions that government support will be available.  In essence, I am aware that I am gambling on it being unlikely to be flooded, but otherwise I have deliberately relied on the governemnt as my ultimate insurer. 

The one good thing that has come out of this flood is the knowledge that flood insurance is now available.  I intend giving Suncorp a call.

NEFFA says:

11:43am | 22/01/11

that was my first thought, now they are threatening us with a flood tax? piss off. make the insurance companies pay out.

Brett says:

01:19pm | 21/01/11

That annoys me too. You see the bleeding heart stories on ACA and Today Tonight about the family house that burnt down and they “lost everything”. If you don’t have insurance, how is this my problem? Whoever suggested to Kochie the idea of a medicare like levy for this is a retard. I like 4 stories up, the chance of my belongings being flooded is near non existant. Should I pay 1% of my wages to cover retards that build houses below water level, or next to a river, or in places like Lismore where it floods every second year? Screw that! I pay for my insurance already!

Steph says:

09:08am | 19/01/11

True Shane, although I do agree on emergency relief funds being made available - so people have a place to sleep, clothes, food etc in the immediate aftermath of a diaster. No qualms there.
After the Black Saturday fires there was such a big to-do about home owners getting pay outs when they lived in thick bush but didn’t bother insuring their homes because it was ‘too expensive’ - yes because there is a fair chance that in a bush fire you’re house would burn!
I don’t mind my taxes and donations going to pay for new infrastructure: roads, schools, powerlines and so on and in the cases of disasters that no one could possibly predict (the incredible flooding of the Lockyer Valley springs to mind) I understand that people might not have sufficient cover and will need help. But if you live on a known flood plain or in the middle of the bush in south eastern Australia… well you need to pay your insurance premiums!
Although I do believe definitions should be standardised and insurance companies be held accountable for unfair contracts - just like other financial providers.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

10:27am | 18/01/11

True, when Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin those who were insured got paid, eventually most of what was due to them, those that were too lazy/irresponsible to have insurance got paid thousands more by the Fabianistic Gough Whitlam

Jane says:

07:51am | 19/01/11

The definitions are straight forward GC

From above- roof is damaged so any water damage that results from the damaged roof is covered

Flash flood - you are not near a river and had no time to save anything. occurs after very large sudden dumps of rain.

Riverine Flood - you have time to save stuff because rivers rise slowly and you have advance notice.

Even with the recent Queenbeyan Flood which were very quick occuring we had 3 hrs from when we knew it would break the bank till when it started invading properties. You can move a lot of stuff in 3 hrs - I know for a fact.

Geoffrey Chaucer says:

09:11pm | 18/01/11

Gosh, I made a big mistake. I thought flooding simply meant having water through the house, but now it turns out it has to come from above; like if some joker put a big water pipe over my house and turn on the tap. Insurance companies are taking a really big risk insuring us against that sort of incident.

But wait there’s more. . . they take an even bigger risk when they insure against wind gales from the bottom, cyclones from within, influenza but only if caught in the late insured’s coffin.

Sounds more and more like the nation across the pond that has no citizens, only customers.

V says:

02:35pm | 18/01/11

Nafe and Random - people wont ask these questions to begin with - they only care about the price. I have worked in insurance and tried to let people know about the difference and they say the don’t care, it’s only what the price is that they care about. Less than 5% of people actually care about what they are and are not covered for. If you’re one of those people who rings around for quotes when you get your renewal and only write the price down for each company - then you deserve what you pay for. Those with some common sense who do ask these questions and listen for the responses will have the cover they need. Good on them too!

HDawg says:

01:07pm | 18/01/11

Bravo PaulB,

Not everyone needs to pay extra for flood insurance and it really should be an optional extra for those that need it. It goes to show that you really should look at your insurance policy. I am with a particular insurer for my vehicle (I don’t own a property yet) and this insurer was by no stretch of the imagination the cheapest, however I compared policys and determined that the extra mony for the more comprehensive policy was worth it. If people are so silly as to blindly purchase inurance based on price etc then I’m sorry but they are going to learn a hard lesson and hopefully they do learn from it.

As stated, there is no need to create legislation to protect the stupid, how about just educate the stupid instead?

Yes insurance companies have various definitions of a “flood” however you will find the definition clearly listed in your policy documentation, the same documentation that they will show to the court when you make a futile attempt to claim.

No I don’t work/or have ever worked for an insurance company, I just think it’s a sad state of affairs when the media creates these stories about how the corpoations are screwing the poor consumers when the consumer is an idiot and screwed him/herself.

SD says:

12:44pm | 18/01/11

I agree.. give it a few months and Kochie will be carrying on how investments have suffered because of insurance company losses, then it will be “oh how will those poor pensioners cope replying on their decreasing investment income”, I’m very disappointed with Kochie and his biased view point, yes it’s a tragedy in QLD however I am capable of checking my insurance policy (the paragraph EXCLUSIONS is usualy in capital letters), people need to take some responsibility for their affairs.

Rednax says:

10:53am | 18/01/11

@ Nafe (8.08am), I agree whole-heartedly, but the point I take away from David Koche’s blog is that flooding is so different between insurers. I think it’s fair to say that all insurers use the same definitions. A flood should have a set definition across the board so that you can go to several insurers and know you’re getting the same thing when each says they are covered for “flooding”

Random says:

09:18am | 18/01/11

Nafe, don’t forget the fourth question.
4) What do you define a flood as?
as L says, Suncorp do it.
I think what “Kochie” is trying to say is that insurance companies have told people they have flood coverage in their policies and the defined a flood in such a way as to avoid paying out on it. Then they get away with it as they are excluded from unfair contract laws.
Common sense is incredibly important and if you live in a flood prone area I agree flood coverage is one of the first things you should be asking your insurance company about. We’ve been legislating for stupidity for years (see the laws against drink driving for example), stupid to get behind the wheel after a few drinks and most people wouldn’t but there are those for whom the law serves as a deterrent.

Nafe says:

08:08am | 18/01/11

Wouldn’t a common sence question to ask when comparing Insurance is to ask “What is Covered”, Then your second question should be “What is excluded”, If Flodding is not mentioned, Your 3rd question should be “Is Flooding covered” Seriously we should stop legislating for stupidity as it only adds to costs.

L. says:

07:32am | 18/01/11

“Insurance has never covered flooding automatically simply because the risk of flooding is not an evenly spread risk among all policyholders, whereas storm damage is. “

Yes, they do… Suncorp and Westpac General cover flooding of all types.

robin says:

12:24pm | 22/01/11

I do not want to subsidize some people who chose to live in a flood zone. The insurance companies seem to be so much smarter than the local councils who encourage people to buy hoses that will float away in the next flood. If the insurance companies say no to flood insurance in your area, move.

Toot says:

10:35am | 22/01/11

Three things Qld Resident.  (1) Before this year, there existed the belief that the Wyvenhoe dam could prevent flooding of this scale, so many people were less concerened about flood areas.  (2)  Between my house and the Brisbane River is a large hill which would leave you to believe that the house that it is not prone to flooding from the Brisbane River - especially when you are new to Brisbane as we were when we bought it.  Trouble is that the tiny little creek behind my back fence is connected to the Brisbane River and so does, theoretically, place me at a risk of flooding (not this time though). (3) When I took out my insurance policy, NO insurer offered flood cover in Qld despite the fact that I was quite willing to pay for it.  It is only through this flood that I have found that this has changed, and I will be asking Suncorp for a quote sometime soon.

Mate, maybe it couldn’t have been you for the floods in Brisbane, but it could still be you for something.  Just ask my mate who lives on the top of a hill in Bellbowrie, who was in no danger of being flooded but is still shell-shocked at being cut off by the flood water and without power for over a week.  Who are you going to feel sorry for when something does happen to you?  More importantly, who will you expect to feel sorry for you?

myne says:

03:21pm | 21/01/11

flood? ?/fl?d/  Show Spelled
[fluhd]  Show IPA
–noun
1. a great flowing or overflowing of water, esp. over land not usually submerged.
2. any great outpouring or stream: a flood of tears.
3. the Flood, the universal deluge recorded as having occurred in the days of Noah. Gen. 7.
4. the rise or flowing in of the tide ( opposed to ebb).
5. a floodlight.
6. Archaic . a large body of water.

Not one single mention of the direction the flood comes from.
Defining legal words is simple. Pick a dictionary, lets say the Oxford 2000 edition and state that every single word used in law must use the definition from that edition for the next 100 years.

Matthew says:

02:59pm | 21/01/11

“Why do they build in Flood prone areas?” That question is getting asked a lot but 225 years ago when Australia was settled they didn’t know they were flood prone areas.  All they saw was “Oooooooh, water, we need water that’s why Brisbane is a good place to settle!”.  For the most part it *is* good.

The fact is that most of the houses hit in Brisbane (and probably the other areas hit) have been there since well before the 1974 floods.

I’m a bit on the fence about this.  It’s happened multiple times before so it’s not like people shouldn’t have known it could happen.  At the same time, with Wivenhoe in place now and also the insurance companies making it difficult I can see why people might not have flood insurance.

Ian says:

06:36am | 21/01/11

I empathizes with all the people that lost everything, nearly 5 months ago my wife and I lost everything in a fire, we are insured and no one was injured. However due to numerous natural disasters since then meaning our assessor has been all over the country we have only had 15% of our settlement. We slept on an inflatable bed for 7 weeks in an empty house it took 4 weeks to get a fridge. So insurance is not the magic wand people may think it is.

Trent says:

11:03am | 19/01/11

Bruno - Tghe vast majority of people struggle through life because of their own fault, their failure to get an education, their over spending and under saving. How about you stop playing the victim for all the loosers out there and take some of your own advice and shut the ....

Trent says:

10:57am | 19/01/11

I see a lot of people are confusing empathy with responsibility. I am very empathetic and feel fo rthe people that have lost every thing, However that does not mean the government should bail them out. You are responsible for your own insurance and understanding your policy. Get it wrong at your cost not at the Tax payers. This is not a socalist society and you need to be responsible for your actions.  Again empathy is fine but don’t confuse it with responsibility, I feel empathy for the boy who drowned in the flooded rivers but that does not mean the parents are not foolish for letting him and should not be punished. You have responsibility which can not be discounted after the event in the name of EMPATHY.

JZCarr says:

09:46am | 19/01/11

It really is quite straight forward, if you don’t want your house to flood, don’t build near a river or other low lying area.

Bruno, you are a goose.  Give yourself a triple and have a good lie down.

Winks says:

07:34am | 19/01/11

When you buy a house in Qld you have to do tital searchs and one of the items that comes up is whether the house is in a flodd plain. This is enough of a clause to drop the sales contract. If you accept this and proceed with the sale it is up to you to get the appropriate insurance cover. That is why you are able to shop around. I did my research and bought in a non flood area. One of the questions needed to be asked is why single story dwellings where allowed to be built rather than raised in the flood prone areas.

With regards to the levie issue, that is quite an easy one to solve. Just stop all foriegn aid until the crisis is finished. It is time we looked after our own back yard rather thyan others.

Jane says:

07:32am | 19/01/11

What everyone should do is be honest with themslves instead of moaning about what isnt included. When you bought that insurance policy, why did you buy it? Was it because it was the cheapest quote or because you knew what it covered.

Self honesty is what is really needed.

paul says:

06:46am | 19/01/11

Insurance is something you pay for and hope you never have to use but why would you build/live in areas where you are prone to disaster. For that matter why do councils approve housing development in flood prone areas and once they do, why are there no covernants that stop building with concrete floors on the ground? Cost I hear, well the cost can be tragic and unfortunately the average person actually believes that councils and governments have their best interests at heart. Wrong!

jeff says:

08:25pm | 18/01/11

give us a break! you can’t protect people from themselves.The policies spell out what is covered, we’re dealing with adults here. We’re breeding a society, encouraged by smug tv presenters, of people who put their hand out everytime something goes wrong. Grow up and take responsibility for oyur actions!

spiffmiff says:

02:40pm | 18/01/11

there are no ‘perfect’ places to live. hilly areas (especially where there is more vegetation) are more prone to fires; coasts may be at risk from tsunami or erosion; inland areas affected by drought; earthquakes near fault lines…. i think is someone drew a map exculuding development in all these types of areas, we wouldn’t have much space to live! calculated risks. i agree that insurance policy wording should be easily understood by all. i agree that some caution should be taken in terms of where houses are allowed to be built (risk based). but some compassion please. even if not flood, disaster could strike your home. perhaps your attitude may change then…. have some compassion people!!!

Meh says:

02:24pm | 18/01/11

Why must we continue to hear uninformed opinions about the ‘small print’? Seriously, anyone who uses this line in their opinion demonstrates quite clearly that they have done no research and have no idea what they are talking about. It is now against Australian law (and has been for a very long time) for insurers to use small/fine print. I thought David Kosch was supposed to know about the Financial Services industry. Queensland floods every year and if people still haven’t bothered to check their insurance policy then they only have themselves to blame. I’ve also read comments about people being offered this type of cover and then refusing because they didn’t want to pay the additional cost. Well why should I give to relief funds to help them out and then have my premiums go up because they didn’t take the right actions to begin with. It costs more to insure for more as the risk of something happening is much higher. Add to that the payout cost and you may begin to understand why it costs more.

Bernie says:

01:35pm | 18/01/11

well, if it’s flash flooding they’re covering, then Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley should be covered, but not the Brisbane River residents and businesses.

Vaunted says:

01:05pm | 18/01/11

Ella, if you live in Brisbane you know when you’re living in a flood zone by downloading the official flood map for your suburb, long available from the Brisbane City Council website. The maps show both flood prone zones and flood ways. Your solicitor should have advised you when you bought the property. As for flood ways and flood zones changing with development, I’ll lay London to a brick that they haven’t changed since John Oxley surveyed the area in 1823.

B says:

01:04pm | 18/01/11

“The only ones I feel really sorry for…” buddy, I feel sorry for you with such lack of empathy - so many people who’ve lives were lost and lives destroyed but hey no sympathy because they “should have protected themselves accordingly”...wow you have never been in an emergency obviously
Thanks Kochie for throwing the spotlight on a continuing issue within the industry.  Policies are a legal document and as such are often not explicit and it may only be when tested with a claim that a definitive interpretation will be obtained from the Insurer .  Good on Bruno! All of us want a ‘home’ and NO ONE would knowingly put themselves, their families or their homes at risk.  This was a freak event, and the resulting query over policy coverage highlights an ongoing issue in the Insurance industry.  Perhaps from this the industry can agree on unified and clearly defined definitions so all people are fully aware of the level of coverage their policy contains - having an optional cover for those areas particularly vulnerable to flood would be an excellent option, then it would be a choice and not a hard learned reality at the time of need when it is revealed you are not covered.

Robert says:

12:55pm | 18/01/11

Really Bruno? I’m sure a lot of people with flooded houses paid a premium for their river views or to have a house with a private jetty and pontoon.

When I built the house I am in now I actually paid less for a larger block of land because it was sloping but it was also high on a hill. The more expensive blocks were level and easy to build on but also reclaimed swamp backing onto a water course. Because of the slope I ended up building a much smaller house due to the additional costs compared to the McMansions build on the lower blocks but feel I much happier knowing that I will never have to worry about the of being caught out by flooding.

Bruno says:

11:34am | 18/01/11

people like Qld Resident, Robert and Steve O should keep their mouths shut. The vast majority of people struggle through life. Why would anyone buy there? Because they would like a house to call home and its where they can afford. Insurance shills like yourselves should go back to your jackal like jobs and shut the f*&k up

Ella says:

09:35am | 18/01/11

The problem is how do you know what is in a flood zone? In city areas the landscape and infrastructure is constantly changing. You have areas that flooded last week that have never been flooded before because the landscape has changed and water was channelled along roads and things that weren’t there before.

And then you have flood prevention measures which you never know if they are going to work until they don’t. I live in an area that was flooded in 1974 and up until Tuesday last week we were all being told that there was nothing to worry about because Wivenhoe dam would stop a repeat of that.

I’m not whinging about my contents insurance though. I knew it didn’t cover flood, so if they don’t pay out they don’t pay out. Insurance is basically gambling, and like all gambling the house always wins.

Davida says:

09:21am | 18/01/11

Should we extend this reasoning to those “silly” enough to live in Adelaide and Perth, known to be on fault lines?  Given it’s a case of when, not if, a massive earthquake occurs,  I hope people have full earthquake cover.  We can then have a thread where people opine ” It could have been me??  No, because I wouldn’t buy above a fault line…..”  Honestly…..empathy is SO a decade ago…

Robert says:

08:49am | 18/01/11

I have to agree. The house we lived in in Queensland was completely underwater in the 74 floods. Why would anybody buying a property like this would ever expect to be able to get flood insurance is beyond me.

Maybe there needs to be something like the NSW Mine Subsidence Board for homes in known flood zones like Brisbane and Ipswich where provided you build to certain requirements you can get cover. Wyong Council where I am now have very strict guidelines for any property on the river, including floors being built at least 300mm above the highest known flood levels. Designs for garages on structures on ground level also need to be built so they will not impede the flow of water making flooding worse.