Insurers Under Scrutiny for Response to Alfred Flood Claims

1

Speaking before an upcoming Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) meeting set to address policyholder issues, Mr. Lee highlighted widespread dissatisfaction among flood-affected businesses regarding their insurance claims. According to him, while some insurers have been proactive, others are rapidly dismissing any responsibility for flood-induced damage.

Mr. Lee shared insights based on data from the state's business disaster recovery initiative. He noted a growing trend where business owners are struggling with insurance complications as they strive to recover from the calamity that hit in March. He criticized certain insurers for demanding exhaustive hydrology reports from already distressed clients and called for more efficient resolutions to these pressing claims.

Emphasizing his point, he recounted the ordeal of a local butcher whose shop faced significant damage estimated at more than $300,000. Despite having paid insurance premiums for nearly two decades, the business owner now finds himself in dire financial straits, having to cover employee wages from his depleting savings, without any incoming revenue.

According to the ICA, insurers have processed over 100,000 claims amounting to nearly $1 billion due to Alfred's impact. Hervey Bay, particularly, suffered severe consequences, leading the ICA to label the incident a catastrophe. They plan to hold a meeting in Hervey Bay on May 15 to address ongoing concerns.

Liam Walter, ICA's director of mitigation and extreme weather response, emphasized the importance of direct engagement in Hervey Bay. The council aims to ensure comprehensive support and resolution for those affected, with expectations that assessments and discussions around rebuilding are well underway by now.

Published:Monday, 5th May 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling mandates that an insurer must fully honor a storm-related claim due to ambiguous policy wording regarding items in open areas. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer's restriction on coverage for items in a patio area was unfounded, as the policy's phrasing was not clear. - read more