It's time to declare war on dodgy insurers !

Just read today's paper how insurers include CGU, QBE, Hollard, Allianz, Elders, Limley, Cuna Mutual, Capricon Mutual refused legitimate claims in disaster zone of Western QLD and left the victims high & dry suffering, the excuse was the damages caused by floodwater, not stormwater. Houses next to each other a few are compensated while many are not. It makes my blood boil, what a load of carp ! It's time we mobilise people power (only if this govt show some leadership !) to clean up this insurance joke. The questions in the application, PDS, duty of disclosure BS are designed so they can wriggle out of paying. You can pay hundreds $$ in premium for 50 yrs and when it comes to make a claim the insurance companies find every excuses under the sun to refuse the claim. You don't handover couple of grand to Harvey Norman and then they decide if they feel like giving you the plasma TV. Honestly how many of you have any faith that your insurer will pay up ! We should name and shame the dodgy insurers. A table of payout ratio is a starting point.
Before anyone starts I know there are very few scums who ripoff insurance companies, but most of us consumers are not criminals.
Now I got it off my chest !
 
Last edited:
the excuse was the damages caused by floodwater, not stormwater.

Sorry, but that's the only sentenced that needed to be made. If the policy doesn't cover flood water, then the insurance company won't pay out. Simple as that.

The majority of insurers specifically don't cover flood water and that's commonly known, which is why generally most people in flood prone regions (as far as I'm aware) should choose Suncorp because they do cover flooding - and you pay a lot more for their policy as a result by the way.

Why people whine and moan when insurance co's don't pay out for things that are not in the policy is beyond me. I had issues with a hot water service at my business last week, so called my broker to see if it was covered. Turns out the problem I had wasn't covered, but if it was caused by a power overload it would have been. Oh well - worth a try. I'm not going to jump up and down screaming that Zurich are ripping me off - they're not. :confused:

You go to Bob Jane's to have two new tyres put on. When you come back they're fitted and you ask the bloke if he rotated the old ones as well and he says "no, that's extra which you didn't ask for." Did he 'rip you off' because he didn't provide something he never agreed to to begin with? Ring up the companies you mentioned and ask if their policies in question have 'flood damage' covered and I reckon they'll all say 'no.' Now if they stated to the policy holder upon taking out the policy that it does specifically cover flood damage and then they don't pay out - that is illegal and they'd be held accountable. But that's something they wouldn't do for that obvious reason.
 
that's only if you are covered against natural disasters, although i might be wrong :)

a lot of people deliberately choose a policy without flood cover because it's cheaper. why then complain that you aren't covered from flood? :confused:
 
Blah blah blah.

It's written in the insurance policy. The people btching and moaning are the ones that didn't read their insurance policy cover to cover AND understand it all.
 
The majority of insurers specifically don't cover flood water and that's commonly known, which is why generally most people in flood prone regions (as far as I'm aware) should choose Suncorp because they do cover flooding - and you pay a lot more for their policy as a result by the way.
Too right! I don't know whether you knew about Suncorp through your lovely wife's job, or from my flood experiences, but yes, surely most people know that the vast majority of insurers don't cover flood. :confused: I actually was concerned immediately after our flood, because I assumed we weren't covered - only to discover 18 hours later (after checking the policy online) that we were very fortunate that Suncorp had begun to cover flood 10 months earlier. :cool:

Having said that, there are still "good" insurers and "not-so-good" insurers, in that there's often a lot of subjectivity involved, and some - like Suncorp - give the benefit of any doubt to policyholders, whereas others are notorious for finding excuses to interpret things to suit the insurer.

Several of our neighbours were with companies who cover stormwater but not flood, but were still covered. This, in my view, was fair, as it was both - water was running through our house from up the hill, as well as coming in from down the hill via creek overflow. (I captured photos of water flowing in the front doors at the time, in case it was in dispute later, not knowing our policy details.) But I believe there are insurers out there who possibly would have fought the call, or would have argued that their liability was limited to a certain percentage, because some damage was caused by stormwater, but some (more :eek:) was caused by flood. :rolleyes:

That doesn't make those insurers dodgy; it just makes them "not as good", and it's up to us as consumers to ensure that the company we're with has a good payout reputation. If you choose your policy solely on price, then you don't really have any right to complain when you "get what you pay for".
 
Jump onto the other side of the Contract

If you are dis-satisfied with the way the Insurance Co. solicitors construct the wording in their policies, and you think it is "unfair" and a "joke".....then you are quite free to jump onto the winning side of the Insurance contract and purchase some shares in the company and receive the dividends and franking credits that the company and it's solicitors strive so hard to make for you.


Life is simply making a choice about which side of the contract you wish to play the game on. Most contracts aren't 50 / 50.
 
Loyds of London are supposed to cover all risks.

I use Suncorp as they are fair payers and local.

I enjoy getting the blowtorch out on Allianz and their ilk every time I have a Plaintiff CTP claim of theirs cross my desk. I know they play the numbers and don't want to pay so I don't even have to go through the charade of negotiations with them. I'm sure it costs them more in legal fees but that is their choice I suppose.

I bought my house on a hill that didn't go under in the 74 floods so its not really a concern. I probably should read the policy one day.....:rolleyes:
 
I enjoy getting the blowtorch out on Allianz and their ilk every time I have a Plaintiff CTP claim of theirs cross my desk. I know they play the numbers and don't want to pay so I don't even have to go through the charade of negotiations with them. I'm sure it costs them more in legal fees but that is their choice I suppose.

Allianz etc pay out plenty on CTP - believe me! ;)

Mind you if people stopped defrauding the system, peoples CTP/rego's wouldn't need to go up so much either. I don't watch the news, but apparently a lot of SA people up in arms at the moment about CTP costs about to go up. :rolleyes:
 
As usual, you get what you pay for. If you want flood cover, ensure it is included in the policy you choose. You may have to pay an extra premium, which most people decline.

One way to fix this for once and for all is to have flood cover included in every household policy. This has been suggested time and time again, but the outcry by those who are safe and high and refuse to accept that premiums will go higher preclude it.

Declaring it a "national disaster" would mean government funding for repairs. So now you see why they declined to call it that.
Marg
 
One way to fix this for once and for all is to have flood cover included in every household policy. This has been suggested time and time again, but the outcry by those who are safe and high and refuse to accept that premiums will go higher preclude it.

That's fair enough really. It's impossible for my house (or pretty much any house I've lived in so far) to be flooded, so I wouldn't appreciate all home policies including that automatically and increasing the resulting premiums. Unless you can opt to have it removed from the policy I guess. It's a pretty simple thing to opt for a policy with flood cover for people in those regions - you would think.
 
the excuse was the damages caused by floodwater, not stormwater. !


Must be heartbreaking to not get insurance cover. But a lot of houses are built where it does flood, especially in rural towns. 100 years ago nearly all rural towns were built next to a creek or river for access to water.

I think flood damage shouldn't be paid out, as otherwise there would be owners continually claiming. The owners of these flood prone houses would thus be getting subsidised by everyone else.

It should be buyer beware. Most locals in a town know the chances of flooding and where it happens, even if it might only be one in a hundred year events. My house will probably go under flood water at some point in a lifetime. I'm 100 metres from a creek on a flood plain on alluvial soil. My house hasn't had floodwater in it for 50 years, but it will probably happen, and I choose to live with that risk and in full knowledge that I'm not covered for flooding.


See ya's.
 
One way to fix this for once and for all is to have flood cover included in every household policy. This has been suggested time and time again, but the outcry by those who are safe and high and refuse to accept that premiums will go higher preclude it.

Even if flood cover were included in every policy, the premiums would be very different to reflect the different levels of risk. So in the flood prone areas you might end up with premiums of over $10,000 a year, which would be a publicity nightmare for the insurers, although it would be fair because it is on a user pay basis.
 
Top