Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 09 Jan 2013, 12:06 AM Agree 0
The Financial Ombudsman has claimed that insurers got it wrong over hundreds of pay-outs for the 2011 floods and homeowner appeals have resulted in a staggering two-thirds being successful.
  • Graeme | 09 Jan 2013, 01:06 PM Agree 0
    Being in New Zealand where we do not have flood insurance, but have water damage, it is difficult to grasp what the issues in Australia are. It would have been interesting had this article said why the claims had been declined and why the FO had over-ruled the declinature.
  • Robert (BrisVegas Qld) | 09 Jan 2013, 11:25 PM Agree 0
    Flood (as defined potentially differently in the domestic and commercial insurance products per Australian insurer) is normally an exclusion, unless specifically requested by the customer / intermediary on behalf of the customer to be included. Obviously the customers that want / need flood insurance coverage are ..... going to go gurgle up when a large water issue occurs.
    At this stage it would appear that a dam wall holding back the rain and then the dam controllers letting the held-back water go into the watercourse below the dam wall at a certain time and flooding areas below the dam wall, is not a 'flood' under the definitions in the policies of the insurers that applied the exclusion.
    An interesting interpretation (result) is my opinion and I am sure a reaction to flood cover will be reviewed by many insurers.
  • Charles | 10 Jan 2013, 11:43 AM Agree 0
    Gee, if the Ombudsman says that; it must be right. They are never wrong.
    I will await for a a proper Court of Law to decide.
  • Ian | 11 Jan 2013, 12:00 PM Agree 0
    So Insurer's got it wrong ? Out of almost 59,000 claims, 1182 appealed to the Ombudsman.... only 2% in total ! If you ask me, Insurers got it right.
Post a reply