When the floods struck Queensland and Victoria at the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011; many people, though devastated by the floods, thought that their insurance would help them to set things right again.
However, many people discovered, to their horror, that sometimes they were paying for insurance with no flood cover, or even that when they had double checked that ‘flood’ was included in their policies, the insurance company didn’t cover them for the type of flood that impacted so many homes across Australia.
According to lawyers and consumer advocates, water flowing from rivers, creeks, dams, lakes or reservoirs may not be covered in some insurers’ definition of a flood, leaving some insurance policy holders unknowingly unprotected to flood damage.
(from Brisbane Times)
In January 2011, I suggested on a 774 Melbourne Facebook comment that the government should legislate a standard definition of flood.
How about having a legally mandated definition of “Flood” for the insurance companies to use, so no-one can weasel out of paying out when people have faithfully been paying premiums?
Friday, 21 January 2011 at 09:13
So I was quite impressed to see ABC news say in November:
The Federal Government has announced plans for a major shake-up of disaster insurance, including the introduction of a standard definition of flood.
It’s nice to see your ideas picked up and used.
Of course, this is no excuse for not reading your insurance policy, but they can be quite thick texts to wade through, and the insurance companies shouldn’t be using confusing language to avoid paying out on claims.