Queensland Floods

[Vicki]

Considering its the core of the ASF right...im guessing there attitude, mite be politicly motivated.

Just as the views of you and IFocus are politically motivated. The left's contempt for people on the land is a hangover from Stalinist times when the Kulaks (independent peasant farmers) were declared "class enemies" and purged..

I find this a little extreme...As Stalin was an out-right murdering pig, who intentionally starved millions of his own people to death!
I can't see any comparison to our system, as we're offering genuine assistance.

Maybe there's more we can do, but I don't think any of our leaders could be compared to that 'psychopath'!

Vicki

 

[Calliope]

I find this a little extreme...As Stalin was an out-right murdering pig, who intentionally starved millions of his own people to death!
I can't see any comparison to our system, as we're offering genuine assistance.

I made no comparison to "our system", whatever that is, or "our leaders".

Perhaps you are a "little extreme" yourself. This is you on another thread;

Good on you sea-sheppards!!! [can't wait for the next series of whale-wars]..

Sink the murdering bastards, before they make another species extinct.

 

[burglar]

No punching below the belt, no eye gouging, ....

 

[Vicki]

I made no comparison to "our system", whatever that is, or "our leaders".

Perhaps you are a "little extreme" yourself. This is you on another thread;

Yes "guilty" i did say "sink the bastards" In reference to a rogue whaling fleet that constantly flouts anti-whaling laws in our waters, with a rediculous technicality.

If our Navy had the authority to get tough on them, By evacuating one of their harpoon-boats, before using it for target practice, that would serve as an example to them, to stop breeching OUR laws, & treating us with contempt.... then yes, I wouldn't be shedding a tear for these large Japanese coy's.

Stalin would've just murdered everyone who defied his authority...big difference.

Anyway, none of the above would ever happen, as Stalin is dead & our government/s are to spineless to tackle the 'big' money lol.

Finished my rant, now we can all get back on subject, with the floods.

Vicki

 

[Whiskers]

Why has this been allowed to continue for so long!

When is a flood not a flood?
Dan Nancarrow
January 6, 2011 - 6:57AM


Consumer groups have called for a common definition of floods in insurance policies as Queensland residents face the prospect of not being covered for damage to their homes.

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.

Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn said policies differed in whether they covered floods caused by intense local rainfall, such as storms and local run off from streets, drains and gutters, or floods caused by rain falling somewhere else and running down rivers or streams.

Mr Zinn said insurance companies did not make the distinction clear to many customers and called for a common definition of floods across all insurers.

"Many residents believe they are covered for flood and suddenly they are inundated and they find that they are not covered because of the differing definitions," he said.

"We tested 45 policies a few months back and half of those did have comprehensive flood cover and half of them didn't.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/when-is-a-flood-not-a-flood-20110105-19g0p.html

I find the ACCC's rationale here intresting to say the least.

Have to see if I can find the proposed definition.

The Insurance Council of Australia put forward a proposal for a common definition of inland flooding in 2008, but it was denied authorisation from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on the basis that the proposal may actually create more confusion, rather than provide clarity for consumers.

At the time, the ACCC said the decision did not prevent the insurance industry from seeking authorisation for a revised proposal in the future and encouraged the council to put forward another definition.

Call me synical, but I think it's a case of smart **** insurers and their lawyers being deliberately deceptive in their promoting of insurance.

I say challenge if you get turned down. Get a group of people with common insurance claim denials together and orchestrate some publicity, name and shame companies... and you may get some better relief to 'shut-up and go away'.

Remember, deceitful and dubious people have a thick hide to operate the way they do, but they depend on a good public persona/perception to continue in business. So don't get caught up in individual brow beating with them, where they will always win, but aim for their soft spot with press and media coverage, letters to politicans, the ombudsman, the premiers office and leters to the editor to highlight their misrepresentations.

PS: Re "Mr Zinn said insurance companies did not make the distinction clear to many customers.. ." if you asked if your policy was covered by flood damage and the insurer or their rep said 'yes' without referring to any specific exclusions in the policy you have a probable cause of action against them. Consumers can often get overwhelmed by the 'law' and the process, but it's a pretty simple point of law that even a layman can win with a bit of stamina.

 

[Whiskers]

Just to eloberate a bit more, the general term for this is Unconscionable Conduct. The ACCC has some pretty easy to follow stuff http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/716807

Unscionscionable conduct is just as much about the 'Ómissions' of the insurer to do a thing (including negligence) as it is about what they actually did and say. Caveat emptor or Buyer Beware does not mean (despite many salesmen believing so) that an insurer can do or fail to do anything that would cause you to enter into a contract that you otherwise would not have.

But the thing I wanted to highlight is that just because the insurance company knocks your claim back and brow beats you with 'ít's all in the fine print', doesn't mean they are (legally) right and the matter ends there.

The conduct of the parties leading up to the contracts enactment is often more important than the actual contract itself... particularly where there is large amounts of fine print and or conditions in highly technical or legal jargen. Unsconscionable conduct legally includes any false or misleading conduct (including negligent) which caused you to agree to the contract, BUT importantly also includes any significant imbalance in power of the parties as the ACCC site points out

particularly people with limited English language skills, education or commercial experience

because to quote the ACCC again..

Clearly set out all key terms of the agreement—ensuring that consumers are made aware of key terms and conditions. If a key term is buried at the back of a long contract or hidden in fine print, it may not be enforceable.

Basically, this means if there is a significant imbalance in power between the parties, such as educational standards to cultural beliefs and 'normal' understanding, to health, such as poor hearing and eye sight that the insurer (or agent) exploited to mislead you into the contract, then you have a legal cause of action to a remedy.

That remedy may be Compensatory Damages, such as refund of all premiums or an order to pay for the flood damage that you were led to believe the policy covered.

It also may include Punitive damages where the insurers conduct is particularrly deceptive, misleading or even malicious. While there has been a legislative cap put on many punative damages, it can still be significant depending on nature and degree of the unscionscionable conduct and the strength the deterrent message the judge wants to send to other people who might try to engage in similar conduct.

So if you are turned down on a claim by the definition of 'Flood', don't take your insurance company's word for it. Develop a bit of community muscle to make some noise and legal muscle eg class action, to get even.

To finish off this rant, one of my favourite sayings is don't get mad... get even. Sock it to the bastards.

 

[Julia]

PS: Re "Mr Zinn said insurance companies did not make the distinction clear to many customers.. ." if you asked if your policy was covered by flood damage and the insurer or their rep said 'yes' without referring to any specific exclusions in the policy you have a probable cause of action against them. Consumers can often get overwhelmed by the 'law' and the process, but it's a pretty simple point of law that even a layman can win with a bit of stamina.

Whiskers, whilst I admire your zeal, I would be surprised if the documentation provided by insurance companies doesn't absolutely cover them in this regard.

I know my policy clearly states I have flood cover from storm/run off/rain, but not if flood is caused by inundation from river, dam etc. It's quite clear.

Claiming that a sales rep told a customer they were fully covered regardless of source of flood is imo unlikely to be much use. Sales rep would deny having made such an assurance (and frankly I doubt they would have said anything like this in the first place).

I did read in some media yesterday a statement from Suncorp saying that their customers would be fully covered regardless of the source of any inundation.

Seems like a good PR move from SUN. You'd have to think the number of customers flocking to them, even if they are not in flood prone areas, would compensate for any extra pay outs.

Hopefully this event will make some people realise that insurance is a necessity, not an option.

 

[Calliope]

I did read in some media yesterday a statement from Suncorp saying that their customers would be fully covered regardless of the source of any inundation.

AAMI which is owned by Suncorp specifically excludes damage by flood. Its policy defines flood as;

Damage or loss caused by flood. Flood means the inundation or covering of normally dry land by water which:

escapes or overflows from, or

cannot enter, because it is full or has overflowed, or

is prevented from entering, because other water has already escaped or been released from it,

the normal confines of any watercourse or lake, including any that may have been modified by human intervention, or reservoir, canal, dam or stormwater channel.

 

[Julia]

I don't suppose AAMI necessarily has the same policy conditions as SUN just because it's owned by them.

Googling for an answer offers more confusion, including SUN's website.

The Courier Mail probably offers a reasonable summary:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/flood-insurance-can-be-a-trap/story-e6frer4f-1225699034428

Are there any SUN customers here? What is your understanding of what your cover includes re floods?

 

[Whiskers]

While this comment from Julia's Courier Mail link seems reasonable on face value, it is not always true.

"Consumers must read the fine print and ask upfront to determine that the exact flood/storm coverage they want is what is on offer," Mr Zenas says.

Too often people don't or can't destinguish between 'Puffery" and promise and sometimes companys deliberately mislead in part by advertising, then try to escape legal unscionscionability by arguing the advertising was puff, ie clearly exaggerated and not intended to form part of the contract. People tend to see or hear the advertising and form a large part of their decision making on that. It's a bit of a gray area but that's where if there is disparity between the literal letter of the contract and stated intent of the contract is is not mutually understood let alone accepted, the law looks at the wider surrounding circumstance to determine the true intentions.

Which brings me back to...

Whiskers, whilst I admire your zeal, I would be surprised if the documentation provided by insurance companies doesn't absolutely cover them in this regard.

I know my policy clearly states I have flood cover from storm/run off/rain, but not if flood is caused by inundation from river, dam etc. It's quite clear.

Claiming that a sales rep told a customer they were fully covered regardless of source of flood is imo unlikely to be much use. Sales rep would deny having made such an assurance (and frankly I doubt they would have said anything like this in the first place).

One of the conditions that must be met after Offer and Acceptance for a contract to be binding is 'Mutuality', put simply that both parties are agreeing on the same terms and conditions. Just by there being something in the fine print doesn't make it mutually understood. A large part of the cases against Sub Prime mortgage lenders and brokers in the US is centered around the aspect of Mutuality, such as false and misleading information to fraud.

Recently a class action was launched against a branch of the Macquarie Bank about free offers with phone contracts that turned out to be a loan from a third party. In essance the class action alleged that Macquarie deliberately designed a contract so that the cover with some additional terms and conditions on the back could and was left off the main body of the contract without the consumer realising there was more to the contract, and pinned back on after the contract was signed to appear as though the loan terms and conditions that activated if and when the communications company went bust, ie the free gifts from the phone company reverted to a debt to the third party that financed the free gifts, were always there and tried to enforce the loan contract on top of the phone contract.

I don't think the case has finished yet, but from what I understand with numerous customers and some down the line staff and agents confirming what was going on, it should be a new low in terms of contractural precedent and unconscionable conduct, in particular that just because a company claims certain details are in the contract, certainly doesn't mean that they were there when the customer signed the contract let alone that they were mutually agreed. In this case it's more about fraud being causal to there being no possibility of 'Mutuality' of understanding.

The final aspect of contract law for a contract to be enforcable is 'Legality'. That is every aspect of the contract from the advertising to the offer and acceptance communication, to the subject matter must all be legal. If any aspect is not 'legal' there is scope to invalidate the contract and or seek damages.

Those of us with a little legalist knowledge know every body of law has a considerable section dedicated to very specific, explicit and implied meanings and or definitions.

Many industries have Çodes of Conduct' (which become law by defacto, where there is no speciific legislation) that also have similar reference to meanings and definitions. What we are facing here is an insurance industry that wants to stay as vague and unaccountable as possible.

I did read in some media yesterday a statement from Suncorp saying that their customers would be fully covered regardless of the source of any inundation.

Seems like a good PR move from SUN. You'd have to think the number of customers flocking to them, even if they are not in flood prone areas, would compensate for any extra pay outs.

Yeah, sort of a ponzi scheme principle... chuck out a few crumbs to stave off more substantial legal suits and lure in some new premiums to pay for it.

Hopefully this event will make some people realise that insurance is a necessity, not an option.

I used to think so, but finding that often you don't get what you are fully intitled to without a fight and now not only with flood insurance, but right across the board the list of exceptons and exemptions from cover seem to be growing to the point where you simply cannot get insurance for the main and most damaging risks in many cases. The insurance cover is pretty hollow in most cases.

While I know you live in Queensland, Julia, I don't know your elevation, but suspect that if you are not in a known flood plain or close to the worst historic flood levels, then having flood insurance is nothing more than a gift to the insurance company isn't it?

It's a bit like having insurance against a foot thick snow blanket in Alice Springs... as useful as t1ts on a bull as they say.

What's happening is the worst affected by floods, ie the lower levels, too often can't get proper flood insurance, because the insurers won't accept the risk at any price.

One of two things have to happen. Either the state impose certain conditions on the insurers license to force them to accept a quota of high risk insurances and offer insurance at some price to all... sorta like the bond market auctions in the US where the banks are compelled to turn up and make an offer at some price.

The other is that Local Councils be banned form zoning land that insurance companies will not offer insurance on.

 

[GumbyLearner]

to do something useful like go cotton chipping in 40 degree heat .

Yes. Really tough and exhausting work. Did it for 6 weeks on the Darling Downs during my undergrad. Couldn't imagine doing it all my life though!

P.S Paid for my books for a semester.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Yes. Really tough and exhausting work. Did it for 6 weeks on the Darling Downs during my undergrad. Couldn't imagine doing it all my life though!

P.S Paid for my books for a semester.

I heard rumours that back in 'Nam even the likes of GG worked part-time on cotton crops. While pursuing a career at AC Nielsen!

 

[grace]

My first ever paid job was cotton chipping in 40degree heat. It was good money for Uni students, but very hard work. I couldn't do it now, and cotton is roundup ready anyway.

Went off camping this week. Two hour return trip took 12 hours because of flood water.

We have young children, and the 12 hour drive was the safest bet. We watched though as some young people found joy in going back and forth flat strap in flood water (water that we wouldn't go through in our 4WD, nor was anyone else all waiting on both sides of the crossing). Luckily no harm came to them, but you can see why the emergency service crews are sick of people being stupid.

 

[Knobby22]

See in the news that some places are looking like flooding again within a month due to new rain.

Unbelievable, feel for you guys up there.

 

[sval62]

A little bit of light relief for a drastic situation.

During the recent floods a young girl was perched on a a roof with a little boy. As they
sat watching the debris float past, the young girl noticed a hat go past. Suddenly the
hat turned and came back,then turned around and went back downstream again.
After it had gone some distance it turned and came back again. They watched this
a number of times.
"Isn't that amazing" the young girl said.
"Not really" the boy replied "Its only my dad"
"This morning my mum said that come hell or high water,he had to mow the lawns
today"

 

[Solly]

Toowoomba Floods, cars getting washed down West Creek at the Herries St Bridge

Link courtesy of tweet from Matt Watson 4BC

 

[Whiskers]

Toowoomba Floods, cars getting washed down West Creek at the Herries St Bridge

Link courtesy of tweet from Matt Watson 4BC

Yeah, incredible stuff! What a mess that sort of flow is going to make.

Even the coastal rivers, the Mary at Gympie is starting to flood the town and still rising, the Mary at Maryborough is problematic and going to get worse when in a couple of days when the Gympie water arrives and the Burnett at Bundaberg had fallen to within 2 or 3 meters above normal, but today it has risen a couple of meters again with more water from the upper reaches still to come and more rain expected for a couple of days in the Burnett and Mary catchments.

But even Brisbane might get swamped yet and Parliament house in George St is pretty vulnerabe. Won't that cause a bit of chaos!

 

[Julia]

Radio news this evening said a 'wall of water' rushed into the Toowoomba CBD today and swept several people away. One confirmed dead and several others missing, presumed dead.

Emergency services have said they are simply unable to meet the demand.

Why on earth hasn't the government got the army on the ground in these devastated areas? It should absolutely not be up to a group of volunteers in the SES to try to deal with such unprecedented conditions.

Solly, that video is just terrifying. A person just wouldn't stand a chance with a force of water like that.

The whole situation seems to be getting worse.

Knobby, thank you for the thought.

 

[Calliope]

The flood devastation in the Lockyer Valley, in which it is reported there have been several deaths and scores missing, has no connection with the avalanche of water that swept through the Toowoomba CBD.

Any water through Toowoomba flows to the West, not the East. The media can't get their minds around this. e.g. in the Courier-Mail;

Through Toowoomba city and down to the Lockyer Valley, the torrent washed houses off their stumps and snapped 4m-high trees at the base of their trunks.

 

[awg]

A few observations as a result of flooding we recieved a few years back in Newcastle.

It didnt recieve much publicity, but things were severe in some parts.

We qualified and recieved Disaster relief, Insurance payout, and no power for 1 week.


First, I feel really sorry for everyone affected, especially as the Wet season is likely to be very wet imo.

Second...Insurance...most insurance does not cover floods, but storm damage is covered. In most cases if a known river floes thru, your policy probably precludes that, unless you have bought specific flood Insurance.

In addition, most are insufficiently covered for contents.

Once running water has been thru a house above the floorboards, your power and sewerage are inoperable. You cannot reconnect the power till it is checked and deemed safe by qualified electrician.

If it has been really wet, the electrical system will probably be a write-off.

Almost all wooden floor and plaster needs to be replaced.

A lack of builders and electricians means this takes ages.

The situation of my own place, is that it was built with a design flaw so serious that it cannot be economically rectified...it blocks the flow of water downhill.

My alternatives are to move, demolish or mitigate.

I have lived here over 30yrs, and after much research about weather, hydrology, plumbing, engineering and local history, I have learned a great deal about the issues.

One of the main issues is that water will follow its natural course. Nature does not care if you have filled and built over the watercourse..it may flow only every 30 years.
However, once the soil becomes completely saturated by an abnormal rain event, all further water will run off, and follow gravity, and its channel.

Hydraulic force is an amazing thing. A mansion near me was destroyed, because the water channel undermined the concrete slab and the house broke in two.

My own property had this risk, so I installed various pumps ( no good without power tho, so now I have generators as well) and other measures.

Its a long drawn out issue, and I found the ignorance and lack of care by various Council officials and tradesmen that should no better to be really quite disturbing.

I feel that it is likely that the damage bill will incomprehensible, as that degree of submersion in deep, hard running water will have undermined the foundations of so many buildings and roads that they would need to be completely rebuilt