In Victoria a court case has started over the very bad bushfires of
2011. This class case against an electricity company could run into billions because of the number of deaths.

The government has complained of “Gold Plating” the electrical system causing electricity rates to be too high.
Could this particular fire have been caused by not Gold Plating the system.

In the oil well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico BP and Halliburton and
some other companies have faced penalties of many Billions of dollars
and if BP had not been able to show that other companies shared the
blame it could have meant the end of BP.

Some of these risks are uninsurable.
Is there a need for a different system of compensating those suffering losses ?

If the Victorian case and perhaps others next summer end up
bankrupting the electrical company it would have to stop trading and
cut off the electricity on the day of the court decision..

If BP and or other offshore oil companies have similar problems again
they may not have insurance cover and could become bankrupt.
If off shore drilling is uninsurable all offshore drilling could stop
and oil supplies could be halved and world wide rationing would be implemented.

The question is, if companies engaged on essential production are
found responsible should there be a different way to compensate victims.

Bazz,
I cannot answer your question but will think about it.

I am not very happy with insurers because my home insurance went up dramaticly this year and they said it is to recover the money they lost in the Brisbane floods.

Hell they had 10-12 years of drought before where there were no floods at all, but that does not count. They want to win every year.

I have put a lot of time, effort and money making this place as defendable as possible from bushfire, but i get no discount on my insurance. Am thinking of installing an interior sprinkler system and carrying my own insurance and i am well out of flood reach.

Banjo, I forgot about the claim about the operators of the Wyvern dam
who are accused of causing the Brisbane flood.
I think this problem should really have politicians involved.
It is conceivable that even a government could be bankrupted.
The Federal government could just print the money, but state governments
could be wiped out.

Bazz,
Yes, I agree.

I heard a retired builder from Brisbane say that 50% of the homes flooded were approved and built below the 1974 flood level.

Was not the Brisbane City Council responsible for that and was not Jim Sooley mayor at the time?

It is an absolute disgrace and I feel so sorry for those affected and who bought approved land and built on it. The councilors should be held accountable. Would not be surprized if a lot of money passed under the table.

From news reports, some are now concerned that the same has been done in western Sydney near the Hawkesbury, so one day there will be a flood. Town planners are supposed to have a degree, but I guess that does not include common sence.

Yes Banjo that problem is not with the Hawkesbury so much but upstream
on the Nepean River.
At a Hornsby Kuringai Emergency Management Committee a talk was given
by someone from the Water Board, now Sydney Water, about the Warragamba
Dam spilling over if we got a certain type of rain storm.
It was pointed out that the only escape road out of the area would be
under water.
The government after that raised the road by about 5 Metres I think.
They have arranged the auto ring to all phones in the area to give
orders to leave the area. Houses roofs would be 10 metres under water.
Downstream there would be severe flooding but not on the scale of
South Penrith.
We are not responsible for that part of Sydney but we would be
affected directly from Wiseman's Ferry down to Broken Bay.

A few years later we did get a storm of that nature but it ended up
just a few miles too far south to cause the problem.
It was a very narrow miss.

It is not always the fault of councils, as all too often, councils/planners are taken to court over rulings, which developers are seeking to have overturned.

You have to remember that a multi million dollar developer usually has a much better lawyer than a local council.

As for companies and governments being sued, I think in this day and age of dog eat dog, the time has come that all governments should have indemnity insurance, as we, the poor old, often powerless, tax payers are running out of steam, as our taxes simply can't keep up with government spending, esspecially when much of the spending turns to waste.

I am sure many would like to have the past five years (federally) and the past ten plus (in QLD) over again, as I'm sure that our taxes wouldn't be wasted, as they have, if given another shot.

Butch,
Sometimes the council ruling is overturned by the courts. However it would be interesting to see what the process was in Brisbane. It is one of the richer councils so good legal representation would not have been a problem, even if a developer had taken the council to court. It is far more usual for the developer to accept the council decission and it could well be that the council itself was the developer.

Having been involved with local council, I know that there are maps that show previous flood levels and home building is not allowed below those levels. Very surprising if a court ruled against that particular ordinance. This ordinance would have to be altered by the council.

Whatever the circumstance, in my view it is criminal to allow home building below a previous known flood level and some person/s were responsible and should be brought to account. Bearing in mind that the cost of a home will be the largest life expenditure made by most people.

But then councils and governments have an excellant record of covering their bums.

We need a no fault national insurance scheme to look after people like NZ’s ACC insurance. It costs less than the equivalent private system because it keeps the parasite lawyers at bay and there is no greedy private insurance company taking their cut and there are no big cash payouts.

In addition we need a national ensurance (not a spelling mistake) scheme based on what was once called common-sense. It would seem it’s not so common any more. Flood plains flood, trees burn, winds blow and water will flow. When doing stuff ensure you take account of those things that may impact on what you are about to do. Take responsibility for your actions and do not expect someone else to be responsible for your bad choices. Ensure that you help where you can those around you who need help if you are able. Don’t palm it off to government or professional do-gooder if at all possible.

When big companies do dumb things to increase profit and wreak havoc ruining lives, suing them for compensation I believe achieves nothing. To pay claims they simply raise the cost of their products and services, so we pay anyway. If they go broke their creditors are forced to raise the cost of their goods and services, so we pay. If government are forced to fill the gap, yep you got it, we pay. Would it not make more sense to ensure that these companies are not allowed to pursue risky ventures in the first place?

We need lawyers that pursue justice not law and money.

We also need a proportional voting system that fairly represents us as a nation. This will curb the unfair self-serving interests of big business, the unions and religion.

I think the major problem coming over the horizon is that many of these
major events are uninsurable.
How can a council handle a claim like 20 billion dollars ?
They would of course turn to the government, but what if the they
could not cover it ?

Talk I hear is it is seen as a problem with escalating claims and
reducing revenue and unaffordable insurance premiums.