Chilling firestorm Video from Victoria bushfires

[Raddles]

Hi there crc
you are still assuming that insurance is the be all and end all - it is not

What happens if your particular insurance company can't come up with the funds and actually argues with you about your rebuilding. What if the accommodation they suggest for you is no where near you work and creates a further financial burden for you.

In our case our insurer said the pool in the backyard was fine - and didn't have to be replaced. We had to fund its removal by talking to the chap who was doing our site clearing - $500 later - it was removed.

Perhaps before you become so judgmental about how money should be disbursed, why not go down to the community centres and shelters and talk to the people affected. You will find people shell shocked - they possibly won't even remember which insurance company they are with and what sort of cover they have ( I know I couldn't remember at the time) - if they have lost friends and family - can you imagine how depressed they will be.

There are a lot of people who need help in our communities - what are you doing to help them?

thanks

 

[Perp]

That’s why people are giving because they feel the pain of the victims.

I think that's exactly right; those of us not near enough to be hands-on find giving money the most convenient way to express our support.

It just strikes me as grotesque that we don't have 50c for oral rehydration salts to save the lives of children in the third world (UNICEF estimates that 3,500 children die every day from diarrhoea, for lack of a packet of ORS - like Gastrolyte - costing less than 50c), yet we have tens of thousands of dollars to give to a family who lost all their (uninsured) contents.

I think that all of the following are appropriate support for bushfire-affected communities (much of which should come from Government):

* fund bushfire safety research
* fund design and development of affordable safety bunkers
* fund public education campaigns on results of above
* allow interstate tradesmen to be licenced to work in bushfire-affected areas of Victoria to help in rebuilding
* provide temporary accommodation and other incentives for interstate tradesmen to work in these areas
* make some items with love - homemade items made for the recipients aren't replacable, but perhaps a new item made for these people will help their new house become a home, eg quilts, paintings, etc
* help bushfire-affected businesses resume operating and rebuild their custom
* go and have a vacation in or near one of the bushfire-affected areas for your next holiday, to pump some money into the local economy
* donate unwanted household goods that are economical to transport
* perhaps some tourism operators could offer empty rooms to bushfire-affected families for free, to give them a respite from the black and misery

PS I'm delighted to see the Sunshine Coast is already working on the last suggestion: http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/feb/13/coast-offers-smiles-after-firestorm/

 

[crc_error]

well said ozperp's, I totally agree with what your saying.. the same point I'm trying to make.

 

[Perp]

you are still assuming that insurance is the be all and end all - it is not

I agree, Raddles, sometimes insurance companies behave reprehensibly. I think each family should be assisted on a case-by-case basis, based on what assistance they're getting from their insurer, and what their needs are.

Wouldn't it have annoyed you, though, if there was a public fund and those people who had no insurance were put up in a flash hotel near their work (at the expense of the public fund), while you were stuck in your not-so-nice apartment that the insurer paid for, a long way from work?

I don't necessarily think those without insurance should be left "high and dry", but I do think that they shouldn't end up advantaged relative to those who did have insurance.

I read your point in another post about the replacement cost of buildings being under "normal circumstances", and not under the extraordinarily high rebuilding costs being charged in the aftermath of a disaster of this scale. Did the shortfall arise because the policy was for a specified value rather than for replacement cost? My policy is for replacement cost and I had assumed that meant I'd be OK, but I'm wondering if you did have a replacement policy, but the insurer argued "replacement cost is X" and paid out that lump sum, rather than rebuilding the house. Then it turned out that X was actually nowhere near enough to rebuild. Are you able to explain how the shortfall arose, so that we can ensure we're all protected?

In any case, I'm genuinely sorry that you were put in such a horrid situation, and congratulate you on doing such a great job of putting your lives back together.

 

[crc_error]

I agree, Raddles, sometimes insurance companies behave reprehensibly. I think each family should be assisted on a case-by-case basis, based on what assistance they're getting from their insurer, and what their needs are.

Wouldn't it have annoyed you, though, if there was a public fund and those people who had no insurance were put up in a flash hotel near their work (at the expense of the public fund), while you were stuck in your not-so-nice apartment that the insurer paid for, a long way from work?

I don't necessarily think those without insurance should be left "high and dry", but I do think that they shouldn't end up advantaged relative to those who did have insurance.

ok, so those who saved $700 a year on house insurance, now will get the same level of care as those who are insured? Why are we rewarding those who didn't want to contribute to insurance to help others?

Sure give them help with basic needs, but beyond that, I don't think its appropriate to reward them for lack of insurance.

 

[ianvestor]

ok, so those who saved $700 a year on house insurance, now will get the same level of care as those who are insured? Why are we rewarding those who didn't want to contribute to insurance to help others?

CRC, when I was about 10 years old, I saved hard for 2 years while my sister spent her money on lollies and junk, and I eventually had $160 to spend on a new bike.

So what does my mum do? She buys my sister a bike, to make things 'fair'

 

[crc_error]

CRC, when I was about 10 years old, I saved hard for 2 years while my sister spent her money on lollies and junk, and I eventually had $160 to spend on a new bike.

So what does my mum do? She buys my sister a bike, to make things 'fair'

yeh, it is a bit like that hey...

 

[Raddles]

Hi there
I won't touch the debate about insurance - because I don't have any experiences with anyone who didn't have insurance.
In our case we had refinanced our two properties one month before the Canberra bushfires. We used the bank valuations as a guide to the level of cover we had. They were a specific amount. We also had a landlord's policy which covered some of the contents such as the curtains and floor coverings. The actual policy also allowed for some rental to be paid, demolition of the site, some fence rebuilding, legal costs, architects fees etc. The cover would have represented about $1000 per square metre to rebuild. That was all the insurance company was legally obligated to pay.

We found that when it came to rebuilding - what was required was between $1100 to $1500 per square metre to rebuild - because there were additional requirements to comply with. For example, the house could not be rebuilt in the original 70s format. There was a new rating scheme to comply with - the orientation of the building had to be different - the building material had to be different - you got stars if your curtains had pelmets - if you had more north facing windows - you were basically energy efficient. Some builders exploited the situation and did charge more - particularly for those owner occupiers who wanted to get ASAP to their property.
It was also an opportunity to remedy any problems with the earlier building - we ended up having to loan $100,000 for the unanticipated costs.

Could I also make the point to everyone that a bushfire can happen anywhere!
Please take the opportunity to review your own preparations for your property and consider what you have done to protect your memories.

Things that can't be replaced are photos - do you have a scanned copy with friends and relatives - so if the worst happened - you can get some of those records back?

Have you scanned in your important numbers like your tax file number, your bank account details etc and say sent it to your hotmail address to access in the event of an emergency?

What I would like to see happen is that the country has a fire plan (as fires do not recognise state boundaries) - they get ready for the fire season which starts around August in QLD then moves down to the Southern states - and there is a national plan on how to attack the situation.

thanks

 

[The Y-man]

Or can you already buy free standing fire bunkers? No idea.

See ya's.

Archicentre were on the radio the other discussing this - they think a relatively cheap unit can be built on site using aerated concrete (insulates), fire rated plasterboard and doors. He was saying the technology would not be all that different from that used to isolate modern apartments in high rise blocks.

Cheers,

The Y-man

 

[wylie]

ok, so those who saved $700 a year on house insurance, now will get the same level of care as those who are insured? Why are we rewarding those who didn't want to contribute to insurance to help others?

Sure give them help with basic needs, but beyond that, I don't think its appropriate to reward them for lack of insurance.

I have no problems with helping EVERYONE out with my donation for the short term. I don't know where the idea that those without house insurance will be handed money to rebuild? Has this actually been said anywhere?

I would not have thought that the Red Cross would be handing over hundreds of thousands to each family who were not insured, in order for them to rebuild, but I could be wrong.

If the Red Cross wants to use my money to buy 50 cent tablets to help anybody, anywhere to have clean water, I am more than happy. If there is excess after the bush fires I don't mind where it is spent, as long as it helps someone in need.

Even those whose houses were uninsured need somewhere to stay short term, and clothing and food, just the same as those fully insured. The insurance companies could take weeks to get things sorted out and get the money flowing, even for short term relief.

So, I am happy that anybody who needs it gets my money.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Great Post Raddles and Oz perp.

I also have a replacement policy (with AAMI) and thought, "good I can not be underinsured." Yet clearly the devil is in the detail. I also wonder if you had a $300k house and set cover at $500k they would claim you were overinsured and profitering? Humm.....

Let face it, insurers dont want to give out the money. They are all advertising "we will help ASAP" , at the moment.

But when fire news is old news then they will change thier tune.

Regards

Peter

 

[chrispy]

I can't help but notice that the people who have not given are telling those of us that did where OUR money should be spent

WE gave the money to help the fire victims, not to save your taxes in roads, hospitals etc.

I sincerely hope that all the money is given to the bush fire victims, because thats why we donated. I have heard of other instances where the tsunami money ended up in Charity funds, to fund what they believe is the next crisis.

Walk around my area, look at the people displaced and tell me insurance money is the be all and end all. So many in my area have lost family members. Its NOT all about money.

CRC I hope you grow up eventually, you are acting like a spoilt child who thinks someone is going to get something you are not. Yes they have -absolute devastation.

Chris

 

[crc_error]

CRC I hope you grow up eventually, you are acting like a spoilt child who thinks someone is going to get something you are not. Yes they have -absolute devastation.

Chris

and I certainly hope you help someone else in need that you come across, perhaps the poor pensioner down the road, or the person across the road who lost their job..

o wait, we dont have all the channel 10 coverage there, and shane warn rustling tins for them so they are all but forgotten..

 

[Perp]

We used the bank valuations as a guide to the level of cover we had. They were a specific amount.

Raddles, thanks for sharing: I just want to be crystal-clear so that we all make sure our own insurance is adequate. Was the problem that you were insured for a fixed sum, and that fixed sum wasn't enough, or was it that you were insured for replacement value of what was there, but had to build something "more" than what was already there to meet requirements?

So let's say it would cost $300K to rebuild exactly what was originally there, or $400K to build a compliant house of the same size/spec.

Was your situation:

1) You had insurance for a flat $300K, and you should have had $400K, ie under-insurance. And of course many people are under-insured; I'm not remotely implying that I lack sympathy in this case, especially when you had recent data informing your nominated figure. Few of us would consider the requirement to build a "better" house when considering how much insurance we need.

OR

2) You had insurance for replacement value, but the insurer argued that it only cost $300K to "replace" exactly what was there, in which case they only have to pay $300K, even though it costs you $400K to rebuild.

Both situations suck, but the latter is a situation that few of us would have considered, and may be a trap for many of us. If you were in the first situation, do you know if any people who had replacement policies got caught out by insurers taking the latter position?

If so, then I guess what we need is either:

1) A "replacement" policy, where replacement includes updating of any materials or design aspects that are required to comply with new legislation, or

2) A "fixed sum" policy with a generous allowance for above.

I hope you understand, I'm not remotely trying to figure out whether this was your "fault" or not, because you certainly sound like you'd made appropriate efforts to have adequate insurance whichever was the case; I'm just trying to learn from your unfortunate experience, so that hopefully none of us end up in the same boat.

 

[chrispy]

CRC

Its so obvious you don't know me...hahaha...yes I do help both financially and with other assistance quite a few pensioners. In fact one is totally dependant on me and one is partially dependant.

I was one of the first to volunteer to go to Arche to project manage the rebuilding there, everything was set to go but due to Indonesian govt problems (they black banned aussies for a while) I was not allowed, but have been involved in many projects voluntarily.

I help Arthritis Vic with their fundraisers, door knock for the Red Cross and many others .... and you??????

Tracey

The problem here in Vic will be the length of time that people will have to wait to rebuild. There is talk they will have to wait up to 18 months for the final report to be issued. Those insured will end up being very under insured because of the distance they now have to live from their work, having to rent, car, fridge, tv replacement, etc, all the things mentioned by Peter.

Remember it was over 200 people killed and in excess of 2,000 houses lost and 7,000 people made homeless according to the radio.

This has made me relook and revalue all of my policies. Some of my ips where I have renovated totally will need to have the insurance lifted considerably to take all the additional issues into account.

Chris

 

[tubs]

Is it any wonder they burn?

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...t=&header=&cc=&c=32480061&s=vic&tm=1235097859

Can anyone spot something that's NOT made of wood?

 

[Perp]

The problem here in Vic will be the length of time that people will have to wait to rebuild. There is talk they will have to wait up to 18 months for the final report to be issued. Those insured will end up being very under insured because of the distance they now have to live from their work, having to rent, car, fridge, tv replacement, etc, all the things mentioned by Peter.

Absolutely. I think we all know we have to insure against a house fire, or a storm, or whatever. But very few of us would ever have imagined something on this scale, with our whole community disappearing, or having to be "temporarily accommodated" for 18 months. I have absolutely no problem with either our taxpayer funds or public aid being used to assist with the unforeseen expenses and consequences of this disaster.

I do hope that whatever red tape can be cleared to allow expeditious re-building - particularly tradie licencing etc, as I mentioned earlier - is cleared. There are enough natural barriers and obstacles for these poor people to overcome, without creating additional man-made obstacles (ie onerous or arbitrary rules) to them putting their lives back together.

 

[Raddles]

Hi Oz
our policy was a "replacement" policy - and yes we had to build something different to what was there.

From my recollections, the insurance assessor first established the size of the building then established the rebuilding costs of such a building. There was definately a component to try to account for the changes which would need to be made to the building - but in hindsight it was understated. The insurance company elected to pay us out a lump sum 2 months after the fires rather they stay with us and fund the rebuilding. They obviously realised the later would cost them more.

I don't know that we could really have done any better - we did actually have comments from the insurance assessor that we were pretty close to the mark with the sum we had nominated for insurance unlike many others he was dealing with where underinsurance was a definate problem.

thanks

 

[crc_error]

If so, then I guess what we need is either:

1) A "replacement" policy, where replacement includes updating of any materials or design aspects that are required to comply with new legislation, or

2) A "fixed sum" policy with a generous allowance for above.

I would say you need a 'new for old' policy on the building.. bit like having that old crt TV stolen, and getting a new LCD one..

This type of thing stinks. There should be laws against this. There should be a minimum requirement for insurance cover, and if the insurance doesn't meet this cover, the client needs to be well aware about it.

If Rudd is to do something useful out of this, new laws governing insurance policies should be implemented.

 

[crc_error]

CRC

Its so obvious you don't know me...hahaha...yes I do help both financially and with other assistance quite a few pensioners. In fact one is totally dependent on me and one is partially dependant.

I was one of the first to volunteer to go to Arche to project manage the rebuilding there, everything was set to go but due to Indonesian govt problems (they black banned aussies for a while) I was not allowed, but have been involved in many projects voluntarily.

I help Arthritis Vic with their fundraisers, door knock for the Red Cross and many others .... and you??????

This is great, there should be more people like you around. I'm glad you help EVERYONE, not just these highly publicized events.

Tracey

The problem here in Vic will be the length of time that people will have to wait to rebuild. There is talk they will have to wait up to 18 months for the final report to be issued. Those insured will end up being very under insured because of the distance they now have to live from their work, having to rent, car, fridge, tv replacement, etc, all the things mentioned by Peter.

Remember it was over 200 people killed and in excess of 2,000 houses lost and 7,000 people made homeless according to the radio.

This has made me relook and revalue all of my policies. Some of my ips where I have renovated totally will need to have the insurance lifted considerably to take all the additional issues into account.

Chris

I agree, this will be a problem, and I hope the government is quick to act.

so what is the case there now? people are not allowed to build there now? I could imagine how long it will take for council to give approvals, heck look how long it takes under normal circumstances.

I think this should be a wake up call for many people to review their insurance cover, and make sure its more than adequate. I know with our house, I over insured the value, plus get the 25% safety net.

Comminsure has a good policy, they guarantee to rebuild the house, regardless of the cost/ and value amount you place on the policy.