Insurance Premiums, Risk and floods

[drron]

And here in Bundaberg food options are even less than usual.A lot of cafes/takeaways are closed as no LNG supplies as pipeline washed away.
But plenty of good stories as well.When I arrived at the motel yesterday an executive of Red Rooster was just leaving.They had supplied 3500 chickens which were given out to the workers and evacuation centres.
But bad stories as well.I can now understand why many people do not have flood insurance-one fellow whose premium after the 2011 flood went from $1000 to $20000 per year.Another fellow whose insurance was due for renewal this week-his place was not affected but there was water in the yards of places across the street so the insurance company(whose ads say they treat you as a person) will not re insure him-his street is now on the risk list.

 

[Pushka]

The totally off-topic thread

This flood insurance is so inconsistent. Our property on Lake Alexandrina on the River Murray did not have flood insurance back in the last Brisbane flood. I called and just far too many hoops to jump through like providing flood plans etc. On receiving the policy renewal this year I noticed we are now covered for flood, for no additional cost.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

This flood insurance is so inconsistent. Our property on Lake Alexandrina on the River Murray did not have flood insurance back in the last Brisbane flood. I called and just far too many hoops to jump through like providing flood plans etc. On receiving the policy renewal this year I noticed we are now covered for flood, for no additional cost.

Just be careful about the interpretation of "flood". Only insurance companies manage to turn being surrounded by unusually high levels of water into a "non-flood"

 

[JessicaTam]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Just be careful about the interpretation of "flood". Only insurance companies manage to turn being surrounded by unusually high levels of water into a "non-flood"

I think that after the last QLD floods there was agreement on a standard definition of what a flood was.

 

[Pushka]

The totally off-topic thread

Just be careful about the interpretation of "flood". Only insurance companies manage to turn being surrounded by unusually high levels of water into a "non-flood"

Yes. The fine print as they say. We are covered for flood meaning water coming from a water course, plus storm surge.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Yes. The fine print as they say. We are covered for flood meaning water coming from a water course, plus storm surge.

Oh good, because wasnt there one company that interpreted a fllod only if it happened to rain that much directly over your own head..anything else was considered..poor drainage!

 

[Pushka]

The totally off-topic thread

Oh good, because wasnt there one company that interpreted a fllod only if it happened to rain that much directly over your own head..anything else was considered..poor drainage!

Yes. I was pleasantly surprised too! Especially after they made it difficult a couple of years ago. Like I said, unpredictable.

 

[JohnK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

On receiving the policy renewal this year I noticed we are now covered for flood, for no additional cost.

This is not a glass half full answer but you do realise that everyone's premiums went up 15-20% to cover flood damage that <2% of the population in Australia requires?

Sounds fair to me....

 

[Simo]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

After waking in some nasty discomfort the other morning I've been diagnosed with a kidney stone. The stone is too small to zap and the urologist advised me i'm going to experience the closest thing to giving birth a male can experience.

:shock:

Big dislike for that.

 

[mrs.dr.ron]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

This is not a glass half full answer but you do realise that everyone's premiums went up 15-20% to cover flood damage that <2% of the population in Australia requires?

Sounds fair to me....

Well you cant have the insurance companies going broke

 

[Pushka]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Our premiums haven't gone up though JohnK, that's my point. We didnt have any flood damage, more like drought, I'm not being subsidised by anyone.

 

[JohnK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Well you cant have the insurance companies going broke

No. The global economy will collapse.

But here is another thought. Why don't people who need flood cover pay for it themselves instead of expecting everyone else to cover for them?

Our premiums haven't gone up though JohnK, that's my point. We didnt have any flood damage, more like drought, I'm not being subsidised by anyone.

I work for an insurance company and my parents also had a ~$150 increase on a $950 premium. Pretty hefty increase....

 

[Katie]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

But here is another thought. Why don't people who need flood cover pay for it themselves instead of expecting everyone else to cover for them?

Many people who do need flood cover pay for it. We pay approx. $2500/yr for house insurance only on our old house which is in a flood area in Brisbane. There have been some govt handouts for electricity being out for over 48hrs, and if certain govt offers were granted, being exempt from the flood levy after 2011. I could not apply for whatever it was on Mr Katie's behalf, only for Little Miss and me, and he didn't ever apply, so ended up paying the flood levy. I think pre-2011, the policy was closer to $1800/yr, including contents. We pay around $2400/yr for house *and* contents in out new house.

Now, there is much more comprehensive information available from BCC than when we bought that house, and their graphic flood maps are very visual and easy to understand the risk. We were incredibly naive when we bought that house and believed what we heard that "74 will never happen again, Wivenhoe has been built since". The area where we purchased is not particularly affected by Wivenhoe, and is much more affected by rainfall in the creek catchment. Creek water flows both over the banks and comes back up through storm water drains. We had 8.5yrs without incident there (and it was not 8yrs of drought, maybe only 4yrs of drought/LaNina), and now there's been flooding 4 times in just over 4yrs, from 30cm-1.4m through the bottom level. 2011 was the third worst, this year was second worst. The worst flood made local media, but not much more than that. A cynical part of me wonders if there's too many rental properties and boarding houses in the area for the media to care too much.

And how in heck the original owners who build the house in 1990 got BCC permission to brick it in downstairs, I will never understand. It may all be technically "non-habitable" to keep in with the line the Lord Mayor is saying that no habitable areas of houses have flooded, but being enclosed brick, is perfect for storing all kinds of stuff. Which then gets ruined when it takes 45mins to go from no water in your house to 1m of water through it.

I don't necessarily expect others to subsidise this, but if that's how the insurance companies work out their payment levels, then your issue should be with the companies, not those with cover who make claims on it. Someone else, I think here on AFF, has mentioned that they specifically do not want to pay more thanks to flood (or fire or cyclone) payouts, so they have found and use an insurer that doesn't offer flood cover in risky areas.
Perhaps that's a niche market for some insurers, and those who oppose subsidising others in flood prome areas can choose to insure with that kind of company.

 

[amaroo]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

But here is another thought. Why don't people who need flood cover pay for it themselves instead of expecting everyone else to cover for them?

I work for an insurance company and my parents also had a ~$150 increase on a $950 premium. Pretty hefty increase....

IMO everything is subsidised. It's what makes this country great!

Plenty of countries you can go to where you'll be left to your own devices.

 

[drron]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Katie you make a very valid point.Councils have given permission to build in flood areas so why shouldn't they share some of the costs?
Another thing that concerns me in QLD is the paucity of flood mitigation works.I lived for 18 years in Maitland before coming to QLD.There is extensive flood mitigation there with a series of levies directing floodwaters away from housing.Having seen a few floods there I saw it really does work.It certainly doesn't save some areas from large floods but it is constantly being improved.
A system of levies was in place in the 40s.Then improved after the 49 and 55 floods.Improvements to the plan are still being carried out.Google flood mitigation in Bundaberg and you get a recent article where the Insurance council is suggesting thinking of levees for Bundaberg.
There must be a great culpability of QLD governments from at least the 30s until the present day.

 

[Simo]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

The entire flood insurance policy thing is not good at all.

I have a customer who built there house in the mid 70's in BNE and was told by BCC that the house will not go here put it here and above the 1-100 year flood line.

They built there and 2 years ago the house went entirely under water.

The spot on there block that they wanted to use was high and dry. They got all of there contents to the shed on that spot and saved all of the contents except the house.

I am not sure of they have taken legal action against BCC.

 

[Pushka]

The totally off-topic thread

Wasn't the flood in Brisbane atypical of the normal flood situation because the man made dam was the cause of inundation and so the usual 100 flood level is irrelevant to what occurred? The council may be well have been correct had it been a naturally occurring flood.

 

[JohnK]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

IMO everything is subsidised. It's what makes this country great!

Plenty of countries you can go to where you'll be left to your own devices.

Have you ever visited familes that cannot survive from day to day because of problem gambling? They get small handouts and we just wipe our hands clean of them?

How about alcoholics? How about drug addicts? How about children growing up in these households?

Let's not harp on a point over and over again but we have people who have accumulated ridiculous amounts of debt gambling and we do not helps them. People regularly commit suicide because of their debt but we just sit back and shrug our shoulders. We do not want to help them because it their fault for gambling. They know what they are doing.

I am good friend of 2 directors of an RSL club. They are changed people since they got on the board and they could not care less. They blame the gambler for their problem not the RSL club, pubs etc for shoving gambling devices in their faces.

Now I know there are people that have bought in flood plains but were not aware for one reason or another. I feel sorry for them.

But there are other that exploit the system.

I remember seeing an interview on TV during the Brisbane flood of 2011 of someone who was devastated at the time. I can understand. I feel sorry for them too. But you know what? They knew they were in the flood plain. They knew they were at risk. They could not get insurance. When did they purchase their house? In 1975 which was a year after the last major flood. They knew. They were not naive. They took a risk of a once in 100 year event. So here we have a person who bought a really cheap house in a flood plain after a major flood and is now seeking compassion.

Yes we are a great society but only if you are well off and need help. Let's not worry about the person who struggles for whatever reason because they know what they are doing and should know better.

Compassionate society my @rse....

 

[Mal]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

I'm mixed opinion wise. I learnt from a young age that a house on a hill is a good location. And I even gathered information about flood plains for my parents place. Yes it was fine under all models.

Never flooded. And if it ever flooded... well Noah would need to be called in.

Since then I had an eye on potential flood plains. The rental I had for many years was well above them.

I did get burnt in 2011 where I was staying in a place that flooded. (I wasn't really affected. Just evacuated for a Couple of days and it cost me about $500 upwards all up and inconvenienced family).

But I do believe that people need to accept the risk of where they settle. And I am sick of the government handing out compo. If I add the flood levy to my cost of the Brisbane floods... I am well over the four figures a couple of times. But I was not Exempt from that charge (complicated story).

If you build where land may flood... sorry, I don't think the government should be bailing you out.

 

[amaroo]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

Not quite true.

Have you ever visited familes that cannot survive from day to day because of problem gambling? They get small handouts and we just wipe our hands clean of them?

I don't smoke. However, I'm pretty sure a good proportion of my taxes go towards subsidising the health cost for the people that do!

Likewise the gamblers. The majority probably drink, smoke, & don't exercise.....yet, they can rock up to any old GP/hospital & get sorted FOC.....try doing that in most other countries. BTW there are countess programs for people with gambling issues.......the key is - wanting to do it!

If we are going to provide hand outs for all sorts of people.....why not the hard working families that suffer during a natural crisis. Drought, Fire or Flood most parts of this country will experience at least one of them.....be a sad day when we turn our back on them!

We've all been paying through the nose for car & house insurance due to the disgusting gangs of the bigger cities - whats the difference?