A word to the wise..... dont just look at the named "shonky" insurance companies.....look also at who is underwriting them. There are actually very few insurance companies in Australia these days. They each trade (as the underwriter) under many different guises. For example, I understand that GIO is owned by Suncorp these days.

You might find yourself leaving one "shonky" Insurer....... only to patronise the same underwriter using a different name.

Seggie. You are right, kfchugo.  Nowadays it's almost impossible to find out who is who re insurance companies.  I also heard that Suncorp have paid out and another company whom I would have thought would fully cover flood damage, don't. Admittedly I believe they have helped flood victims somewhat but I feel for those who thought they were covered.  It's no good saying to read the fine print.  Who can fully understand it? It seems that there are different interpretations of 'flood damage'. Is it from the heavens, rivers and creeks overflowing or what? Has damage to the inside of the home come from overflowing gutters that haven't been attended to?  I believe folk are still having problems with insurance re the bushfires. How sad to have paid all those premiums to find out you aren't covered.  It's disgusting.  Those companies should be named. 

Do not all insurance companies supply a booklet when renewing,

outlining what you are, and what you are not covered in your policy?

I'm with the APIA and it tells you plainly what your policy covers.

Some choose a cheaper policy which does not include certain

happenings unless you pay more.

I'm not out to make ins. co,s. to be saints, but they are not charities either.

Isn't this debacle back to buyer beware? Isn't it up to the insured to ask

questions about their policy?or even read it first

Every thing one buys you ask questions first before accepting.

.

Seggie. Hi Seth.  I'm with APIA too.  I wasn't referring to any problems I have; it's my friends and their friends who have all the trouble.  I try to read every word and if I can't understand it, a telephone call usually answers my questions. So don't think it's me. It ain't!!!!!!!   

Of course not you Seggie - you are female :)

We  do read everything (oops well most times, sometimes)?

I am speaking for me Seggie not you,  but I have started reading everything :)

seth, "Do not all insurance companies supply a booklet when renewing,

outlining what you are, and what you are not covered in your policy?"

Maybe you haven't read what was said by Legal Aid closely enough, because they were covered in their policies, it was there in black and white.  The report acknowledges that a few should have read the fine print, but for the majority the problem was that the insurers beavered away for weeks with their lawyers to find weasel words to deny their responsibilities and having found none, had the gall to say that the dictionary definitions of their own words were not applicable but what they said later was.  They said that a flood wasn't a flood in short.

The examples I know of and are being represented by Legal Aid did have flood coverage on the policy AND were above government's 100 yr flood tables.  As well, they were not indunated as a result of rising flood water but by flash flood from descending rain and large columns of water suddenly built up because storm drains could not handle it.  There are huge storm drains that were geysers, well above where flooding was apparent and caused flooding to the roof tops of houses.  Floods above the floods.

Others had flooding for the first time in history because the Wivenhoe Dam which was built to provide flood mitigation had been kept at very high capacity to provide water for Brisbane. Brisbane and SEQ have suffered overpopulation through the excessive migration policies of the federal government.  As the deluge peaked, the Wivenhow, which was being held at 90%+ capacity threatened to breach its recently raised walls, which would have had catastrophic effect.  The other large dams linked to Wivenhoe, eg Somerset were already exceeding capacity.

Desperate emergency action required wide open gates, which coincided with existing flooding and high tides, a sort of poor timinig that dam engineers warn against.  The walls of water from Wivenhoe took short cuts and rushed up creeks including higher up the river.  The peak flows from the Wivenhoe lasted days and had to be continued despite flooding and tides.  Government has managed to shed its responsibility.  All acknowledge that Wivenhoe was a close call and the management of the water was problematic, which is an understatement.

The nimbies supported by the Greens having convinced federal the federal Labor government to scuttle the new Traverston Dam, the Wivenhoe is currently being run too high for the same reasons, yet the BOM forecast is for another very wet summer.

There had been a rather unique event, the ground was entirely saturated and a large downpour caused flash flooding in areas that had never been flooded before and in land above flood areas. 

The spin by insurers has implied that it was people in known flood areas who stupidly didn't understand their policies who 'complained'.  But they woulkd say that wouldn't they? That was and is their divide and conquer spin to deny public support for people they rode toughshod over.