...Pompous statements of condemnation aimed at flood victims of the Queensland floods and cyclones such as made here by Hasbeen, are indicative of the ignorance to the facts of many Australians that surround the suffering caused to the victims of these natural disasters, which will and do occur, and ignore facts as pointed out succinctly by Brody in this article, that in particular, 15% of claims for flood damage redress were declined by the insurance companies on technical grounds centred on the nature of the flood itself. Hasbeen is typical in his criticisms of victims of the floods for not insuring their properties, (but yet recommends as an austerity measure, people not insure their properties and shoulder their own risk as he himself did with his yacht).

...Again, that woolly thinking belies another reality, that of legal obligation of the mortgagor by the mortgagee to insure the asset of the home; That fact alone forces many insurers to take cheap options offered by insurance companies; companies who too often hide the true detail of deficiencies in their policies in small print; (enter the 15% rejection of claims).

...If more people, (as I and many others did when the chips were down), raised their winging fat arses from a comfortable lounge chair to participate in reconstruction efforts, the ignorance of such matters would be reduced. Thankfully, many generous Australians, without hesitation, contributed to their fellow Australians with money, time and personal effort to assist families overcome personal tragedy in reconstruction efforts in places such as Ipswich, and I am hugely buoyed by all the people I met doing just that

if insurance companies are forced to cover natural disasters that we know in advance are going to occur, then we will all have to pay higher premiums.

All properties in Brisbane that were recently flooded, were also flooded in 1974 & 1893. some were also flooded on other ocasions repeatedly.

in these circumstances the insurance companies should also be able to sue the corrupt &/or incompetent bureaucrooks, politicians who insist on allowing building, construction on flood plain land, especially when higher land is available.

The horror of Grantham is an excellent example of this.

diver dan

Take another look (or a first look) at the arguments. The 15 per cent rejected, were most likely rejected on the grounds that their policy did not cover riverine flood. River floods were excluded because the building stood in a flood plain, and would therefore be expected to flooded out at some point. You cannot insure against a certain event.

The media at the time reported this as if the distinction between river floods and floods from storms was in some way new, and some sort of technical escape clause for insurance companies. Hence the author's confusion. In fact, its always been that way, and it is not a fine or idle distinction. Houses built in flood plains cannot expect to get river flood coverage, and never have been able to get it. To complain that people are whinging when they are simply pointing out the blindingly obvious is absurd.

If you want to give them assistance then it is a matter for the government, or perhaps voluntary work, not insurance companies.

Formersnag,

Insurance companies all do their own risk analysis to varying degrees.

For example, my insurance company does risk assessment to the street number level. They also cap their liabilities with reinsurance.

Another insurance company may only assess to postcode level or street level and will not insure certain events despite the risk being neglible in perhaps most of that postcode. They choose to limit their business but reduce the risk assessment burden.

All insurance companies would be aware of the flood maps and hydrology reports. It is public information.

In my area some of the affected houses have been there since the turn of last century but most were built during the 2nd world war and to my knowledge council hasn't issued new building permits in flood affected areas for two decades.

That insurance companies choose to insure houses in known risk event areas is the risk they accept in exchange for a premium. They are betting on that risk event not occuring.

Should they get that wrong they have but themselves to blame.

Nevertheless the point around councils continuing to approve construction in known risk areas is valid if it is still occuring.

Neutral, I think that insurer I rejected may be the ones who's logo you mentioned. Perhaps they have lost so much business they have reduced their prices. I found cover at just over half their price.

I have a difficulty with insurance as many will not insure you if you are not on town water. Many others will not do so if your land exceeds 2 hectors. I am guilty of both sins.

If I can be excluded by these factors, admittedly caused by my own choosing, why should purchasers of flood prone properties, obviously a greater danger than mine, & of their own choosing, be not so excluded?

Diver, you probably aren't interested to know I was born on the 29TH of February. Yes Leap year. I only get a birthday every 4 years. I went for 12 years without a birthday celebration, even a beer, because in 76 & 80 on the 29Th I was in the middle of a cyclone. I only noticed I'd missed my birthday a day or two later.

In one it was just me & my boat, & the Solomon sea, & birthdays were the least of my worries.

In the other, after fetching a number of people in danger which developed about 40 hours faster than the bureau had advised, I was then responsible for the safety of 32 people.

When it was over, I was the one suffering loss, which I could have reduced if I had looked to my own situation first, rather than the safety of others.

I gather you have helped after the event, & that's great, but you do have a tendency to go off without the facts mate. I have nothing against those who stay in flood prone areas, in fact I recognise their difficulty, after the event, & actually admire them. I have also been invilved in a few cyclone clean up efforts, & feel for them, particularly the single elderly, however I'm not prepared to subsidise them, as I don't ask you to subsidise me.

Hasbeen,

The logo required me to fit through a very small hoop at a very exhorbitant price so I doubt they have reduced their margins. The insurer I am with has a sunny disposition and is also a major QLD financial institution.

I keep forgetting from 20+ years in Sydney that the SCG logo did not originate there.

I had my car insurance with the logo but recently changed that to a cheaper policy sold via a supermarket with business links to coal mines and hardware chains in protest at their unwillingness to insure my house under reasonable terms.

Next year I will probably change again to take advantage of the 3 policy bulk discount the sunny side offers.

That's business.