Bush Fire Victims and Insurance

[letiha]

Not wanting to feel cruel obviously there is a large loss of property and life. Millions of dollars are being raised for the victims. My question is where is this money going to, sad to say not everyone has insurance.

Maybe insurance needs to be mandatory like CTP, paid through rates etc. I would imagine the large majority of people have insurance...so where will the money go other than the initial feeding, clothing and housing of the victims.

 

[wylie]

I heard on the radio this morning that the bushfire levy in Victoria was about 30% of the policy cost and that may be why many people could not afford insurance.

Curious to hear from those with property in rural Victoria whether their premiums are much higher due to this levy.

 

[sue78]

I honestly doubt $30mil is anywhere near enough to replace properties perished, cars, building etc. Some of which are several millions alone. It's not a cheap area.

Maybe enough if we all gave up our $950. I'm more than happy to.

 

[marg4000]

Most people will have insurance. Unlike flood, fire is covered under just about every policy. One man on TV last night said his insurance payout had been approved and would be in his bank account today.

Strictly financially speaking, those in Victoria will fare better than those in the Ingham floods, even though the losses in other aspects cannot be compared.
Marg

 

[wylie]

I honestly doubt $30mil is anywhere near enough to replace properties perished, cars, building etc. Some of which are several millions alone. It's not a cheap area.

Maybe enough if we all gave up our $950. I'm more than happy to.

I would imagine the donated money will go towards replacing short term things that these people need before they even think about insurance, like food, clothing, shoes, school things.

Houses, cars etc should be covered by insurance, but thousands of people need immediate short term help and this is what the donations are for, I would think.

 

[marg4000]

Maybe enough if we all gave up our $950. I'm more than happy to.

Presuming the package is passed, there is nothing to stop people donating their $950 to the fire or flood appeals. Tax deductible too, so you would still finish with a little extra in the tax return.
Marg

 

[Pushka]

Not sure if even insured people will be covered unless they have taken out the additional bushfire premium. That was brought in a few years ago but only applies to people living in known bushfire areas. I do not agree that the $950 should be put into the Bushfire fund; but obviously people could donate it. At the moment though, Nick Zenaphon will not vote for it as the there is no money allocated for water infrastructure in the package; and if there is one thing that Victoria and SA need, it is water!

 

[Gee Cee]

I know that this is certainly a horrific event. Mostly for the loss of life. Effects on people and communities. And the future trauma .
But from memory events like the Sydney hail storm as a cost to insurers was much higher dollar wise than major bush fires.
Does not seem right

 

[Strannik]

that's cause bushfires happened in area with low population
if it was in melbourne itself cost would be much higher

 

[Pushka]

And also, the building structures seem as though they would be easier to replace - timber and galvanised iron. Sheds etc may not be covered.

 

[ethereal]

Most people will have insurance. Unlike flood, fire is covered under just about every policy. One man on TV last night said his insurance payout had been approved and would be in his bank account today.

Strictly financially speaking, those in Victoria will fare better than those in the Ingham floods, even though the losses in other aspects cannot be compared.
Marg

The folks in Ingham should be fine. Having been through the Mackay floods last february, the insurance companies have been great and I have not heard of anyone who was not covered even though in reading the policy it seemed that would be the case. Apparently it was because it was raining and water was falling from the sky, even though many houses were flooded from the river and other waterways overflowing. Maybe the insurance companies just didn't want the bad press that would come from rejecting claims. I think the bushfire situation may be similar - the damage to the companies reputation would not be worth it.

 

[fmx_rider]

I honestly doubt $30mil is anywhere near enough to replace properties perished, cars, building etc. Some of which are several millions alone. It's not a cheap area.

I agree that $30m won't go far, will only cover short term needs and cleanup. However I disagree with your opinion on the area.
There were some very nice properties on large country (farm size) blocks in these areas, but the ones which were hardest hit (eg Kinglake/Kinglake West etc) were relatively high density areas which were relatively cheap and small amoungst the bush...thus caused the high increase in 'tree change' population over the last 10 years. As the land was cheap people bought, but then only built fairly cheap houses (eg. wood) in the fire prone areas compared to stone or brick.
There are many other reasons that contributed to the fires and I don't wish to speculate here, just wanted to add a small comment about the area.

 

[fmx_rider]

And to remain on topic, I can't believe how many people I have seen on tv that were not insured. I agree that it should be mandatory to a certain level. Sheds and fences and other things would be covered as long as people had policies listing them.
I think it will be some time before anyone rebuilts as I think there will be significant planning changes (affected building approvals) for these areas coming out of the Royal Commission.

 

[Ms Jade]

The fire levy is added by the Vic state gov't to all insurance premiums to pay for the CFA, so anyone with building insurance will be covered. This will be the same sad tale as it was in Ash Wednesday where some people just don't insure themselves. No one thinks it will happen to them. I can't believe that even car insurance is not compulsory, so home insurance never will be. As terrible as it is, that's the situation if you don't insure.

Though we were insured through the Ash Wednesday fires, the fire that hit our area was found to be the fault of some Telecom contractors (from memory). Rather than go through an horrendous class action they paid out, so luckily even you weren't insured you would have been OK. I reckon that if anyone is convicted for arson over these fires that the victims will be victims of crime. Perhaps they can seek redress through the Crimes Compensation Tribunal.

 

[Raddles]

Hi there
Having been through the bushfire experience after 2003 - I can say if you have adequate insurance - it is not as necessary to apply to the fund relief funds for items.

You will have heard they are establishing a commission to allocate funds - what will happen is the funds can be applied for probably to accommodate a shortfall. For example, many policy holders in Canberra found that their insurance did not cover the actual clear up of the land - part of the funds raised in that Appeal could have gone to those costs.

I believe we may have benefited from the fund at the end of the process when we got $5000 for rebuilding. In our case we used that money to pay for fences and to establish gardens.

Whilst it may seem like a lot of money they are raising - individuals may not see too much of it, particularly if they do have insurance.
thanks

 

[Pushka]

I heard after one particular disaster that people who had insurance waited longer for their house than those who didnt, but received the money raised by the public.

I think if you cant afford house insurance then you cant afford a house!

 

[Perp]

I heard after one particular disaster that people who had insurance waited longer for their house than those who didnt, but received the money raised by the public.

I think if you cant afford house insurance then you cant afford a house!

I totally agree. I remember after 9/11, when charities raised something like $1M for every person who died , the families of the firefighters who'd taken out life insurance, for say $500K, got their payouts from the charity reduced by the $500K that they received from the insurance. Quite rightly these families objected that it was unfair to be penalised for their father/husband having foresight, but I don't know if they won that argument.

Sorry if it sounds heartless, but I wouldn't donate to an appeal for making good insurable losses. It encourages people not to have insurance. And I was always bought up with the same philosophy as Pushka (same goes for cars, expensive jewellery, etc): if you can't afford to insure it, you can't afford to have it in the first place.

Being uninsured is plain irresponsible.

 

[boomtown]

I can't agree with you Tracey. The purpose of charity is not to create financial advantage for anyone - it is to support those less fortunate (and less insured).

And I suspect being the good person that you are - you have already donated to the Red Cross or similar.

 

[Pushka]

Hm, I would like to think that money donated went into building/ schools, books, shops, utilities community services etc in the long term, and in the short term, provide everyone with food, clothes, somewhere to sleep for a while, and toys for the kids. And anything that Insurance will never cover. I think it would be an unfortunate for it to be spent in building homes for people who didnt want to take out insurance. You can afford insurance, it is a matter of juggling priorities.

 

[Bricks & Mortar]

Hm, I would like to think that money donated went into building/ schools, books, shops, utilities community services etc in the long term, and in the short term, provide everyone with food, clothes, somewhere to sleep for a while, and toys for the kids. And anything that Insurance will never cover. I think it would be an unfortunate for it to be spent in building homes for people who didnt want to take out insurance. You can afford insurance, it is a matter of juggling priorities.

When you take out a mortagage the lender requires certificate of currency to state the house is insured... after the loan is through nothing further is required by the banks/lenders.
Let's face it, our Governments wont make it compulsory but the banks certainly could in both their interests and the interests of the families taking out the loans.

Imagine the people who have lost their homes and still have the outstanding mortgage of a house that no longer exists.

Seems that the lender could and should insist a continual current insurance in place as part of taking out the loan.