Adelaide, SA

Brisbane, QLD

Melbourne, VIC

Perth, WA

Sydney, NSW

Sheffield, UK

Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Fishpond Books Australia - Amazon Books - Bookdepository UK

Welcome to Diamond Aussie Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest.

This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.
If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls.

Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Be aware that we dislike Spam postings, and the IP of any Spam sender is sent on to various Spam databases.

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
House Insurance - FLOOD cover
Topic Started: Jan 12 2011, 10:56:48 AM (1,915 Views)
ABCDiamond
Member Avatar


Just been checking into this, as it is rather appropriate to many people.

I have done a page on this at: http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/flood-and-home-insurance-cover/

But in a nutshell...

Many Insurers cover Flash Flooding, but not the type of Floods that we are getting in QLD at the moment.

Suncorp appears to be the ONLY insurer giving full flood cover in their standard policies, but they are currently NOT accepting NEW customers in the flood affected areas, which I think they mean Queensland by that.

My own renewal is due in 7 days, and they will not accept new policies even from my postcode.
My policy is with AAMI, who quote, relatively clearly, "AAMI Home Insurance does not cover flood"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melibeam
Member Avatar
Most Exceptional Lady

We are with Real Insurance and it says we are covered for loss or damage to your home and contents caused by storm, flood and rainwater, but a max of $15000 for damage to home and $15000 for contents - which is not a lot!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hevs
Member Avatar
Miraculous Mamma Mod

This is kind of what I'm alluding too with Sasha on FB, The government isnt responsible for making sure that people take out the correct insurance. For example, people living in bush fire prone areas can pay something on their premiums to get additional fire cover, sadly most chose not to, again the government is expected to pay out. I may sound like a real bitch here, but surely people do have to take SOME responsibility to make sure they look after themselves in life? Natural disasters happen every month somewhere, its too much to expect governments to shell out everytime, insurance companies have to stand up and take something out of their massive profits too....surely? And its time that this is looked at by the govenment too :nah:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hevs
Member Avatar
Miraculous Mamma Mod

Just to clarify :blushing: I meant that in areas people live that are prone to such things need to make sure they are covered. People in Toowomba for example would never have drempt that would have happened I'm sure.......And the insurance comapnies need to cover things like cyclones etc in normal policies too, and again it needs to be looked at and capped so people arent crippled by it. Its part of the country we live in and they shouldn t be allowed to weedle out of it!
Edited by Hevs, Jan 12 2011, 11:43:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lynnj
Member Avatar


I bet a lot of people will be caught out thinking they are covered, and will look for someone to blame. I think it should be mandatory for insurance companies to cover you for flood if you live in a flood area, your policy should cost more to cover it but there shouldn't be an option of insurance with it or insurance without it, but there should be caps in place to avoid the insurance companies just taking the p##s and making areas unaffordable to live in.

Because of the country we live in the government will assist these poor people who have lost everything then find they are insured by a bunch of w*****s who won't pay up, due to the massive scale of this disaster, but what about the individual who loses everything in an isolated incident, do they get the same help from government and appeal funds?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lynnj
Member Avatar


Meant to say too, Mel and ABC, hope you are moving everything you own as high up as possible, just incase.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne
Member Avatar
Wonderful Winsome Wench

I agree that people should be adequately covered. I wonder though what happens in situations like here where it would be totally unprecedented for us to get flooded. I had a long conversation about it with my insurers when we took out our cover. She clearly stated on the phone that flood was not covered (good to point it out I think) then between us we decided that there is no rivers/streams anywhere near us, as far as we know, so would not need it. However, should we get masses and masses of rain would rivers appear that we do not know about because they have been dried up for years? Though if I thought that was the case then yes, I would change my insurance to make sure we are covered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lynnj
Member Avatar


Didn't there always used to a be a claus in policies that said it didn't cover "acts of god"? I'm sure they could have been sued for that by someone claiming there was no god...... but...... I always used to think how unfair that was because for most people the one time you would have to use your insurance would be when your whole life had been ripped out from under your feet by a natural disaster, or act of mother nature.

Insurance companies are financial instituations and as such are there to take your money and make life difficult for you so they can make a whopping great profit. That said of course.... any claim I;ve had to make has been much quicker and easier than any claims I made in the uk, but we are talking leaky fish tank and dropped tv not seeing my house and all it's contents washed away in a sea of mud.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ohippy
Member Avatar
Original Opulent Optimist

I have found though that things I took for granted in my UK insurance are just not covered here. Take accidental cover for example, my UK policy covered practically anything and everything but here it doesn't seem to include much at all and there are so many exclusions that it does make you wonder if insurance is worth it at all. That said, I always make sure I have insurance and do think it's wrong that you are covered for flash floods but not floods .... what is the reasoning behind this ? It's not as if you can lift your whole house up and move it just because you had a bit of warning ?!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ABCDiamond
Member Avatar


ohippy
Jan 12 2011, 12:36:01 PM
I have found though that things I took for granted in my UK insurance are just not covered here. Take accidental cover for example, my UK policy covered practically anything and everything but here it doesn't seem to include much at all and there are so many exclusions that it does make you wonder if insurance is worth it at all. That said, I always make sure I have insurance and do think it's wrong that you are covered for flash floods but not floods .... what is the reasoning behind this ? It's not as if you can lift your whole house up and move it just because you had a bit of warning ?!!!
I actually used to be an insurance broker back in the UK, many years back, and the vast majority of policies didn't cover accidental damage. I recall many claims that were rejected. But one claim sticks in my mind. A lady lost her necklace down the shower drain, while showering.
Sun Alliance, a good insurer at the time, paid up without question..
I switched my own cover to them immediately :wink:

I also well remember that 'Act of God' clause, and its common use at the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snappy
Member Avatar
Sexy Sizzling Schmoozer

Having worked for a company that carried out reports for insurance companies about the stability of homes, factors behind the damage etc I can tell you that a lot of the problem isn't down to what cover you have. Even if you are covered by the insurance company if for example after Cyclone Larry or Ului (as a more recent example) the insurers were getting reports in from builders/engineers etc stating that the roof was blown off due to an old screw or not cyclone rated roof etc then the insurer would not pay out stating that it was down to the lack of wear and tear by the owner that the roof blew off not the 290 odd mph winds!

A lot of people that thought they had adequate covering by insurance didn't get the full payout of what it would cost for their house to be rebuilt and subsequently couldn't afford to rebuild.

So not only do you have to ensure you have adequate insurance you also have to ensure your house is kept up to the highest of qualities otherwise they will argue it is your fault anyway!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hevs
Member Avatar
Miraculous Mamma Mod

ohippy
Jan 12 2011, 12:36:01 PM
I have found though that things I took for granted in my UK insurance are just not covered here. Take accidental cover for example, my UK policy covered practically anything and everything but here it doesn't seem to include much at all
You just need to call tem and clarify. I wanted my DSL camera to be covered and had a long chat to the lady and for an extra $9 a month now have all of our mobiles covered for theft, loss, or damage (It was costing us $27 a month with the phone companies) Our laptops, all cameras etc in and out of the home. We also have full accidental damage cover which includes carpets etc. I also upped my buildings cover when I researched how much a builder would charge us to rebuild our home. It costs $104 a month, dont know if this is good or bad, I just love that I am covered for everything, including fire......

Sasha, thats outrageous, I reckon I'd get Slater and Gordon to start a class action over that!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snappy
Member Avatar
Sexy Sizzling Schmoozer

I must add in that here that on the insurer's side of things there are a lot of people that take the mick on their insurance claims so I suppose they have to weed out the good from the bad but still the majority of the claims they turned down were genuine people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hevs
Member Avatar
Miraculous Mamma Mod

I'm sorry, but the scum bags should be made to pay out in these situations...ultimately we will ALL pay for this...Federal gov = all of us....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ABCDiamond
Member Avatar


Hevs
Jan 13 2011, 06:53:59 PM
I'm sorry, but the scum bags should be made to pay out in these situations...ultimately we will ALL pay for this...Federal gov = all of us....
If full flood cover was compulsory, then it would be easier to handle.

However, we have a situation where some insurers offer a policy with automatic flood cover,some offer flood cover at an extra premium, and some give no flood cover. Each of these have differing premiums.

If someone chooses a cheaper premium, and does not get the flood cover, it seems right that they are opting out of cover.

I looked at my premiums and they are $998 with NO flood cover, $1,500 with flood cover.

Because of my location I feel that paying the extra $500 is a waste of money. But if I lived in a flood prone area I would ensure that I had the cover.

However, that covers the easy cut and dry situations.

There are other situations where people think they are covered, but aren't. This is where the insurers need to ensure they are very clear in what is covered.

Suncorp had problems recently with exactly that, and accepted that the insured did not always understand. To stop this misunderstanding again, Suncorp added Flood cover to every policy, but also all premiums now take account of that.
If anyone ever changes from a Suncorp policy to another insurer, eg: AAMI, for a better premium, and has problems with flood cover, they will not have a leg to stand in with the new insurer.

I mention that example as Suncorp and AAMI are part of the same group, but offering different policies and premiums. eg: Suncorp $1,500 including flood, AAMI $1,000 excluding flood. Neither policy can be reduced or extended in respect to Flood cover.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snappy
Member Avatar
Sexy Sizzling Schmoozer

Considering Suncorp advertises itself on the insurer for the Queensland weather as the weather is so unique blah blah blah they should cover for the all the items on their advert automatically otherwise it is false advertising if you only get that as an extra. So I'm glad it has changed their policy now it would be interesting to see if they manage to sneak out form repaying as they have done in the past.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ABCDiamond
Member Avatar


NRMA insurance is an interesting one.

NMRA Queensland is different to the NRMA main NRMA, even now having separate websites and policy documents.

With this in mind, I have now seen a big problem with searching for information using Internet search engines.

A search for NMRA flood cover gave this page: http://www.nrma.com.au/home-insurance/home-contents/features-benefits.shtml#nor

The first thing you see is:
Quote:
 
Flood cover
We cover you for water damage, storms and other causes of flooding, including damage caused by major flooding and when rainfall outside your local area causes nearby creeks and rivers to overflow.


But that search result does not specify that if you are in QLD, then you are on the wrong NRMA website. If you scroll up to the top of the page, you do see this: "Need Insurance in QLD? Visit NRMA Home Insurance QLD", but most people would just see the first bit that appears, and assume that NRMA covers it. Well, NRMA does, but NRMA QLD, a separate company, does not.

If a person goes to the NRMA home page though, instead of direct to the information page, they will get asked of they want NSW-VIC-ACT OR QLD.

I have a house policy with NRMA, and have the policy documents that say that I have cover for flood. The policy is for a house in NSW though

This post was just interrupted by the Postman, who was delivery my letters to the door as one was a large one. However one was from the NRMA.... My NSW House insurance renewal expired Dec 30th, and I forgot to pay the premium... :blushing:

I've just renewed by phone, but it sort of gets a bit scary realising that we went for 2 weeks without cover.

I feel like a stiff drink...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snappy
Member Avatar
Sexy Sizzling Schmoozer

Oh blimey Eric glad you got that one sorted out without any dramas to your house!

It does seem a bit cloak and dagger hiding things away in the small print...but always read the small print I suppose!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ABCDiamond
Member Avatar


Snappy
Jan 17 2011, 08:13:52 AM
Oh blimey Eric glad you got that one sorted out without any dramas to your house!

It does seem a bit cloak and dagger hiding things away in the small print...but always read the small print I suppose!
Sometimes the small print is just too damned small... :no:

I know someone locally who swears by the NRMA for great cover. But they moved up from NSW :S

NRMA have different policies for South and West Australia aswell, but at least they call themselves by different names in those states, to avoid confusion.

SGIO - in WA
SGIC - in SA

There is now talk of all policies having to have full flood cover by Law, Wayne Swan was discussing this.
This would end the confusion, but at what cost ? Household Insurance premiums to rise +/- 50% ?

As always these things have their good and bad points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snappy
Member Avatar
Sexy Sizzling Schmoozer

Or even if it is made law that insurers have to inform the customer that the flood insurance is extra and clearly state how much etc etc plus even get the customer to sign a waiver so that there is proof it was indeed their choice not to take out flood insurance and not from the hidden small print of insurers of today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ABCDiamond
Member Avatar


Snappy
Jan 18 2011, 01:55:11 PM
Or even if it is made law that insurers have to inform the customer that the flood insurance is extra and clearly state how much etc etc plus even get the customer to sign a waiver so that there is proof it was indeed their choice not to take out flood insurance and not from the hidden small print of insurers of today.
That would be a good idea, and could be implemented very quickly, with no real cost.

The pensioner that thought he had Flood cover, was told he had flood cover, only to be told, after the flood, that his flood cover was limited to $15,000, and not the $250,000 total cover that he paid for, is one big example that should be used to ensure that we all know EXACTLY what cover we have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snappy
Member Avatar
Sexy Sizzling Schmoozer

I do think it all needs to be spelt out very clearly and before any payments are made to that insurance company so that you know what you are signing up for!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · **SERIOUS STUFF** · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Phone Card Choice Work From Home
Quicklens Australia Contact Lenses Travel Insurance - Columbus Direct

atc atc