Cyclone insurance with only 1 percent knockback - I doubt it.

Up here in the area most affected by Yasi a common story is of insurance companies knocking back damage on the claim it is 'due to lack of maintenance', or people being offered a pittance in 'exgratia' payments that go nowhere near the cost of repairs. They might be able to split hairs over the definition of flood but they still had difficulty admitting that we had a cat5 cyclone.

I also dispute Neutral's understanding that money from the premier's appeal is not being handed out. Money is being handed out, with a very targeted and thoughtful plan. I am very happy even though we got only a small amount.

If not for Anna Bligh, the insurance companies would have had a far greater decline rate. When putting in for the premier's appeal as many were encouraged to do, as insurance companies were declining all over the place, we had to give permission for the Premier's Dept to contact our insurers on our behalf.

God bless Anna and her staff as our insurer's staff told us that they were putting the pressure on them to do the right thing.

A property built on the Brisbane river is usually worth up tp ten times that of a suburban property.

So, if the owners of these properties expect us to prop up their asset, then may i suggest we get a slice of the profits when they sell.

Of cause I doubt they will agree to this, but it would only be fair don't you think.

Aka, I challenge your understanding of what I said. Review what I did say and perhaps that may explain why you "got only a small amount".

What I wouldn't dispute is insurance companies propensity to use legalistic and technical pedantry down to the nth degree to avoid legal and moral responsibility.

There is no mystery about insurance. Just a lot of misunderstanding.

>>Insurers are not in business to insure people who take decisions that will certainly expose them to expensive damage<<

They most certainly are, Herbert Stencil.

But only if there is a buck in it for them.

Otherwise, how do you explain earthquake insurance... in California?

http://www.quakeinsurance.net/

The science of calculating risk is highly developed, and is the fundamental building block of the insurance industry, which essentially works as follows: you calculate the risk of having to pay out $x, and calculate the premium that you charge as $x plus fifteen percent. You average this out over the population you intend to insure, and voilà, you have an insurance business.

If payouts are likely to exceed premium income, you raise the premium. If people try to rort the system (yes, some do...) by claiming damage that occurred outside the scope of the policy, you resist - to do otherwise would be to penalize those who play by the system.

Looked at in its very simplest form, you are playing the pokies. You know that the payout is fixed - in this example, it is 85% - but you play anyway.

Insurance is not rocket science. Nor is it a charitable source of funds doled out by kindly souls with a sympathetic tear in the corner of their eye.

It is a business. And the challenge of "working harder to ensure flood cover for all" is simply met: raise the premiums for all.

...You mean to say your part human Hasbeen; Go tell the people in Ipswich how great and compassionate the Insurance companies were to them. Bit of advice; you may need a baseball bat if you want to escape alive!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12477#215772

Neutral, another similar issue is the Victorian bushfires which were also worsened by RED/green loony left land use policies at both local & state level, which radically increased the fuel loads.

Another contributing factor was poor maintainance of power lines, also produced by poor government policy.