While many are bashing the insurance companies for not paying out on the floods, they forget that the insurance companies are facing multi billion dollar claims that can threaten their survival.

An actuarial college of mine mentioned that the particular institution she was doing work for simply refused to offer flood insurance to houses and businesses built in the flood plain, stating that it was not possible to create a package with affordable premiums for such a high risk. She likened this to the reluctance to sell life insurance to cancer sufferers.

Personally, I believe that the fault lies entirely with the councils who gladly sold this land without even the simplest requirement to build up the houses to a safe level.

Thats why we have ants to feed grass hoppers.

An interesting thing in Rocklea was that the Bunnings store, which was built around 10 years ago, suffered minimal flooding thanks to being built on an elevated pad, while houses nearby on blocks of similar nominal natural ground level that had not been built up were significantly flooded.

It's a simple equation for owners in flood-affected parts of Brisbane: the place will flood about every 40 years and so the total cost of ownership will be affected to that extent. If you are going to live in those areas, then you have to be prepared to replace flood-damaged goods about that frequently. If the last flood occurred 20 years ago, there's a good chance that you will have to do so within the next 20.

I'm looking for a new business premises and I'll be considering flood-affected proerties. I'll certainly be taking the likely damage to the business into account if I make an offer on one.

It should be possible , though difficult , to achieve some standard clauses to cover various losses arising from "flood "[ however defined ] and related events such as "water damage "[ however defined ] . The Insurance Council of Australia , with the Law Council of Australia ,and other professional bodies , representing engineers , architects and builders , could convene a panel to draft such clauses . If it is concluded that some properties cannot be insured at all , government could acquire these at market value [ disregarding their risk of flooding ] and the owners could leave , such properties never again to be occupied and suitably rezoned . On insurable land , owners who choose not to insure adequately against flood and related damage should be refused any government assistance , in the event of future flooding . Many citizens hold interests in insurance companies , through superannuation , so payouts by insurers affect their interests .

For many the problem seems to be the clauses that give the appearance of offering coverage while actually restricting it. On top of that the insurer reserves the right to interpret clauses as it wishes. It is a joke of long standing that the consumer finds out after the event what they should have been informed of before paying the premium.

However it isn't only insurance companies that deliberately hide many of their qualifying conditions behind an opaque pane of glass, because from what I have heard, Centrelink is a master of it. Maybe our culture has changed and now there are many more claimants who live by their wits and would take advantage of conditions wherever they can. Perhaps more are litigious too and with the free help of guvvy funded advocates.

The flood related issues are many and separate from insurance.
I was offered a good? deal,
A rebuilt home on 4 times the land here.
For less than I paid a fool may have bought it, not me it was rebuilt after floods.
Insurance is very costly here, but it could have been worse, flood policy's was $300 more.
But it has never flooded here, can not water levels would need to be 25 meters more than ever.
But insurance is raw profits based a great deal is made from it.
And most Australian groups sold the risk to over seas firms.
Added to the last cent any loss will over time see profits higher.
Now flood plans, can we always avoid building on them?
Some are the very reason we live near them, we can hope for better policing better building even more mitigation but we can not conquer nature.
We, all of us,may however take a different stand if the victims numbers included us, strange are we not?