Greedy AAMI ?

Ok, called AAMI and they said that problem related to the article in News Mail was because AAMI placed an embargo in all the areas affected for the floods during the floods which to me is reasonable.
Also they said that the embargo now is lifted but they are not insuring houses any more for floods in the post code 4670.

From APIA (underwritten by AAMI):
QUOTE:
" Apia Executive Manager Craig Dingle said Apia provided peace of mind for customers by covering flood damage to insured buildings and contents caused by river or creek flooding, flash flooding, rainwater run-off and storm water."

Now it was a looong time ago, but the arguments happened after the 1974 flood, and the vilification of the Insurance companies.

BCC said they would prepare and publish 100 year flood maps and there was a HUGH outcry from property owners in flood areas thet their property values would be affected and AFAIR the council chickened out.

NONE of this debate would occur if there was the equivalent of a NSW 149 certificate on the title that said this house is within the 100 year flood zone, and its unlikely you can get flood insurance.

All those pleading ignorant now would not have a leg to stand on. And IMHO they don't anyway.
My wife's neice bought a 2 story townhouse in Milton overlooking lovely parkland. It went under half way up the second storey. YET her parents lived in Jindalee during 1974 when they were cut off for days. Surely they should have advised her.

There is no accounting for the sunny optimism of people and then their shock when it doesn't pan out.

Regards Philip A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

There is no accounting for the sunny optimism of people and then their shock when it doesn't pan out.

Regards Philip A

---

My Mrs has relatives in Goodna. They had about 24 hours warning of flooding reaching 1974 levels, which they knew would inundate their properties. They didn't move any personal belongings at all, lost the lot. I don't think they deserve a full insurance payout because they didn't lift a finger to protect themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJon

My Mrs has relatives in Goodna. They had about 24 hours warning of flooding reaching 1974 levels, which they knew would inundate their properties. They didn't move any personal belongings at all, lost the lot. I don't think they deserve a full insurance payout because they didn't lift a finger to protect themselves.

---

Goodna is the next suburb to mine and yes we did get the warning text messages.It would appear that very few took heed especially those at the caravan park on the banks of Woogaroo Creek.They were awash in 74 and the same this year.
My real bitch is with the Ipswich City Council in allowing developers to build in known flood areas.As for insurance I ,too, thought I was covered and that gave a certain peace of mind.( the water got within 10 metres) That peace of mind was shattered when , upon inquiry, I found that I was covered for everything except "riverine" These insurance sharks should divulge this info to prospective customers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitz

While I agree with the sentiment, the simple fact is that is what insurance companies are there for. Insurance companies combined make billions of dollars in profits a year, which goes to share holders; when something like this happens pay up and dont have such big dividends.
If they dont pay up then they are taking money fradulently and should be taken to court accordingly. they are in the risk game and no one forced them to be there.

---

sound good and fair to me BUT under our corporate laws their first legal responsiblity is to the share holders not the customers if share holders lose money then the directors can end up in gaol there,s no good will allowed:(

PS how long have people been told to read the fine print in insurance polices if they dont who,s fault is it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disco44

G These insurance sharks should divulge this info to prospective customers.

---

They do, it is all in the contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJon

They do, it is all in the contract.

---

which is rarely fully read. I dont think i have read all the fine print in mine either.

Get a broker put what you want in a policy in writing to him/her and get them to read all the fine print:D you orta try insuring a security company did you know we can get insurance for assault and battery as long as we dont break the law when doing it:D my insurance is split among 4 companies as one by them selves wont touch security our fine print is about 10 pages:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace

which is rarely fully read. I dont think i have read all the fine print in mine either.

---

You can't hold an insurance company responsible for your laziness!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace

I agree, if they take the premium then they should be prepared to pay out in the event of a claim.

Matt

---

...but they didn't take the premium.

That type of flooding is excluded in the policy. So it's like saying "I have cover for fire, so you should pay out for flood." Had the punter paid the premium for flood they would have paid an awful lot more.