Queensland Floods

[TOCC]

Gillard could take a lesson from Bligh and Newman in public relations

 

[Rob42]

Aha - just saw my new avatar - assigned by you Moses? That's champagne stuff. I'll take it. Back to more serious discussion.

 

[Ash]

Scotty - Clem Jones has a big black mark against his name in my book for his rezoning of land owned by him to make himself millions. Could not happen today as now it's illegal. At least he did some good with his ill-gotten wealth, but what he did was downright dodgy.

 

[Moses]

Aha - just saw my new avatar - assigned by you Moses? That's champagne stuff. I'll take it. Back to more serious discussion.

I'll claim this tough, uncompromising, no holds barred, no beg your pardons Avatar for an intellectual sparring partner whose name happens to be Rob.

 

[MrTimms]

Just got into Suncorp, good news is the pitch is looking fine.
Bad news is there is a lot of work to be done in the back (cabling and infrastructure)

 

[Ham]

Just got into Suncorp, good news is the pitch is looking fine.
Bad news is there is a lot of work to be done in the back (cabling and infrastructure)

Wow. I expected the pitch to look a lot worse. I suspect it won't be ideal for scurummaging over the next few months though.

 

[MrTimms]

Yeah, I was surprised by that too.

If my lawn is anything to go by, it is nearly dried out now and it was pooled with water, it has been HOT up here the last couple of days.

 

[RedsHappy]

..... It was particularly stupid that houses were allowed to be built in the flood zone between 74 and 85 (when Wivenhoe was completed). Did anyone in the council actually question the intelligence of this decision and the validity of the town plan?...

Yes Scotty, and does it not beggar belief that, as but one example of many extraordinarily negligent zoning decisions in Brisbane, Suncorp Stadium was permitted to be built (finished 2002-3) under the 1974 flood line, as current events sadly demonstrate.

 

[Ruggo]

I would expect some huge shitfights over insurance claims over the comming months. In their eyes flood and storm water damage are completely different things and they will fight hard to get out of paying out on this. I feel for all the people who are going to get caught up in this shit fight. I also hope the rest of QLD is not forgotten about now that Brisbane has suffered flooding.

Good to hear that you and your family are safe Reg. Sorry to hear about your home mate.

 

[Scotty]

Well, there is a difference from stormwater damage, flash flooding or riverine flooding.

The insurers will no doubt be painted as the bad guys here, but is it up to the individual to ensure they have the correct cover for them. We can't blame the big bad insurer because people can't be bothered to read their policies.

The biggest and most legitimate shit fight will be with the council, particularly when there are reports stating the 1 in 100 rain event flood levels are incorrect, and that new developments are being built below these levels. Imagine how pissed off you'd be if you spent $1M + on an apartment in Tennyson only to find out it is susceptible to flooding!?

 

[Ruggo]

I don't think it is a case of people not being bothered to read their policies. The cause of the flooding will be an issue of debate for some time to come. Did the initial water come up through the sewer system or did it come directly over the river banks? While answers to these types of questions are investigated policies will not be honoured and the true value of insurance will be lost. For insurance to be a worthwhile investment, claims need to be assesed quickly.

If I was to spend one million on and appartment anywhere I would do my homework. As the flood is not unprecidented I would have serious reservations about purchasing by the river. It is no different to somebody in Darwin purchasing in a storm surge area knowing full well what could happen because of the precident set by Cyclone Tracy. It happens all the time.

 

[cyclopath]

Wow. I expected the pitch to look a lot worse. I suspect it won't be ideal for scurummaging over the next few months though.

That shouldn't bother the Reds!
Is it too early for that type of comment?

 

[Scotty]

I don't think it is a case of people not being bothered to read their policies. The cause of the flooding will be an issue of debate for some time to come. Did the initial water come up through the sewer system or did it come directly over the river banks? While answers to these types of questions are investigated policies will not be honoured and the true value of insurance will be lost. For insurance to be a worthwhile investment, claims need to be assesed quickly.

If I was to spend one million on and appartment anywhere I would do my homework. As the flood is not unprecidented I would have serious reservations about purchasing by the river. It is no different to somebody in Darwin purchasing in a storm surge area knowing full well what could happen because of the precident set by Cyclone Tracy. It happens all the time.

I think you will find a lot of these people had no idea that they weren't covered for flood damage. As far as I know Suncorp Metway is the only one that covers it automatically, some give you the option to pay a higher premium and some don't cover it at all (or cover 'stormwater' damage).

My wife is a hydraulic engineer that used to work for insurance companies to assess what type of event caused the damage. There is often grey areas (such as what happened out west earlier this year, where there are some law suits going down now.) The engineer gives an assessment, then the insurance company decide what they will do. Sometimes the insurance company decides to cover the damage anyway (believe me it happens), if there is any likelihood of it being a bit 'grey'. So the media painting the insurance companies as the 'big bad men' isn't helpful or even accurate.

And to the speed of assessments. I assure you that these will already be going on for the properties that were flooded a few weeks ago. Of course it is going to take time to assess all flood affected areas, but normally the engineers and then the insurance companies act very quickly on these things. However I can say to almost 100% certainty that no major damage in these floods in Brisbane were caused by either stormwater or flash flooding. It is riverine flooding. Either over flowing its banks, or backing up via creeks and stormwater systems.

Agree that they should have reservations of buying next to the river, but when a council tells you that it is being built 500mm higher than the flooding caused by a 1 in 100 event, I think you are entitled to some form of surety in your purchase. In this case the council and its advisers have been wrong - how is a layperson meant to be able to predict that? So I would argue that it is significantly different to a cyclone type of event.

 

[MrTimms]

some give you the option to pay a higher premium

I heard a lady on the news saying that she opted not to take the flood add on, because of cost. Without the add on the premium was $90/month, with the add-on it was $400odd a month. Quite an extra cost.

That being said, If that were me I would have researched it and discover Suncorp included it and probably gone that way. There is always a way, just a matter of putting the effort in, which unfortunately some don't.

 

[Bowside]

Some insurance companies offer flood insurance but with a clause that protects them from having to pay it if the flood was due to "rivers rising". Similar to the old "acts of god" clause that insurance companies use to peddle. Its an absolute scum bag move by the insurance company, but at the end of the day that is why you always have to be so careful and read the fine print.

From a business perspective, Suncorp have made a genius decision to publicly come out and say they will honour their claims. I know my old man's talking about switching to Suncorp out of principal, I expect many other Queenslanders might also follow suit.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think it helps that they are strong in the QLD market and probably sense an opportunity to gain a bit of share too.

 

[Jethro Tah]

Yes Scotty, and does it not beggar belief that, as but one example of many extraordinarily negligent zoning decisions in Brisbane, Suncorp Stadium was permitted to be built (finished 2002-3) under the 1974 flood line, as current events sadly demonstrate.

Don't quote me but I think you will find that the regulations re building in flood prone areas differ for non residential property.

 

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...ing-after-floods/story-fn7iwx3v-1225990640368

The shit is starting to hit the fan.

Writing in The Australian today, Andrew Dragun, adjunct professor of economics at the Australian Rivers Institute of Griffith University, says the management of Wivenhoe ahead of the flooding in Brisbane was "dangerously inadequate".

The incomplete, two-stage upgrade of the Wivenhoe Dam is expected to be among the issues canvassed in the commission of inquiry. The upgrade was first mooted in 2000 and then again in 2003 after reports showed that, in a worst-case scenario, Wivenhoe could get twice the volume of water from its catchment than its existing spillway could handle. Modelling showed it could cause the dam wall to collapse under the pressure.

The first stage of the project, involving the construction of a $70m, 165m-wide spillway, was finished in 2006.

It was predicted to be able to manage a one-in-100,000-year flood, with the second stage increasing capacity even further and bringing the dam in line with Australian safety standards. The report said the staged upgrade would also allow for flexibility for increases to flood estimates and "cost savings to SEQWater over a single upgrade option".

 

[Scotty]

I heard a lady on the news saying that she opted not to take the flood add on, because of cost. Without the add on the premium was $90/month, with the add-on it was $400odd a month. Quite an extra cost.

That being said, If that were me I would have researched it and discover Suncorp included it and probably gone that way. There is always a way, just a matter of putting the effort in, which unfortunately some don't.

If I got that response from my insurer, I'd be selling my house and moving to higher ground.

 

[Scotty]

Some insurance companies offer flood insurance but with a clause that protects them from having to pay it if the flood was due to "rivers rising". Similar to the old "acts of god" clause that insurance companies use to peddle. Its an absolute scum bag move by the insurance company, but at the end of the day that is why you always have to be so careful and read the fine print.

From a business perspective, Suncorp have made a genius decision to publicly come out and say they will honour their claims. I know my old man's talking about switching to Suncorp out of principal, I expect many other Queenslanders might also follow suit.

They had to honour their claims. They cover all flood damage. Not just the other two I mentioned.

However, Suncorp have already had a few bad years, and these claims will severely hit their bottom line. I wouldn't want to be a shareholder right now (was but sold about 18 months ago).

They should be putting their premiums up a little to reflect their risk.