Insurance and lack of flood cover

Trampas

With the latest floods more and more people will be unable to get flood cover.

Companies not even offering a loading but plainly refusing cover.

Should kenny and his crew be doing something about it?

oldyouth

You can't force a business to sell to a customer if it doesn't want to.

You're basically asking an insurer to cover an event that is more than likely going to occur, which is against the principle of fortuitous incident

MugMugs

oldyouth wrote: »

You can't force a business to sell to a customer if it doesn't want to.

Motor insurance says different.

There's an obligation to meet a minimal level of cover albeit to third parties.

Frankly, I believe that insurers should have to cover all the usual risks reflected in an appropriate premium

peteb2

MugMugs wrote: »

Motor insurance says different.

There's an obligation to meet a minimal level of cover albeit to third parties.

Frankly, I believe that insurers should have to cover all the usual risks reflected in an appropriate premium

Motor insurance says different. Because it is different. It's a statutory requirement under the road traffic act. No obligation to have home insurance.

homer911

MugMugs wrote: »

Frankly, I believe that insurers should have to cover all the usual risks reflected in an appropriate premium

Home owners wouldn't be able to afford the appropriate premium

oldyouth

MugMugs wrote: »

Motor insurance says different.

There's an obligation to meet a minimal level of cover albeit to third parties.

Frankly, I believe that insurers should have to cover all the usual risks reflected in an appropriate premium

You know that motor insurance is different because of the statutory requirement. Would you be happy to subsidise policyholders in unfortunate areas for their annual flooding? It goes beyond 'risk' in those circumstances as you are well aware. Insurers have a responsibility to protect the collective pool as best they can and this cannot be achieved by imposing an unaffordable loading on the rest of it's clients.

Now, as for the Government offering financial assistance to people in those areas, that is a different matter and we should do that as a society

MugMugs

I am aware that it is a statritory requirement.

Point I was trying to make that there's nothing stopping enforcement for such a requirement for those in the unfortunate position of living on flood plains.

Would I be happy to subsidise these people? Probably not. I'm not happy about having to subsidise Sean Quinns undoings either though, yet I do.

I just don't think it's right that we turn our backs on those in such a vunerable place.

oldyouth

MugMugs wrote: »

I am aware that it is a statritory requirement.

Point I was trying to make that there's nothing stopping enforcement for such a requirement for those in the unfortunate position of living on flood plains.

Would I be happy to subsidise these people? Probably not. I'm not happy about having to subsidise Sean Quinns undoings either though, yet I do.

I just don't think it's right that we turn our backs on those in such a vunerable place.

Ah, so you want insurers to be obliged to offer flood cover to those in flood areas at a premium that covers the cost of their own flood claims.

I did say that we, as a society, should assist people in those areas.

AlexisM

MugMugs wrote: »

Motor insurance says different.

There's an obligation to meet a minimal level of cover albeit to third parties.

There is, however, no obligation to charge a standard rate for the motor insurance. If a driver has had 5 accidents and is on their 10th drink driving conviction (and somehow still driving...), the insurer could charge them 50K for their insurance if it's justified by their stats.

So, sure, you could oblige insurers to provide flood cover at a commercial rate - but I doubt those in previously flooded areas would be able to afford it...

If the insurers aren't obliged to cover flood risk, rather than the government bailing out flooded home/business owners after the fact, they (the government) could become flood insurer of last resort for flood prone places - it will still cost way more than any premiums they could bring in but at least it would bring in SOME money in advance from those who want cover - and provide business/home owners with the comfort of knowing they have some level of cover.

Trampas

End of the day councils gave planning permissions for houses to be built in locations were houses are flooding.

Places are even flooding with no rivers near them as more a result of drains not been cleared.

Of course our council will come up with some excuse that it's not their fault.

MugMugs

AlexisM wrote: »

There is, however, no obligation to charge a standard rate for the motor insurance. If a driver has had 5 accidents and is on their 10th drink driving conviction (and somehow still driving...), the insurer could charge them 50K for their insurance if it's justified by their stats.

So, sure, you could oblige insurers to provide flood cover at a commercial rate - but I doubt those in previously flooded areas would be able to afford it...

If the insurers aren't obliged to cover flood risk, rather than the government bailing out flooded home/business owners after the fact, they (the government) could become flood insurer of last resort for flood prone places - it will still cost way more than any premiums they could bring in but at least it would bring in SOME money in advance from those who want cover - and provide business/home owners with the comfort of knowing they have some level of cover.

But there is an obligation to provide cover under the declined cases committee.

I'm not really discussing the principles of premiums charged, I accept that they would be beyond reasonable however I do think that there should be an obligation for insurers to quote all reasonable risks and I see flooding as a reasonable risk.

the_syco

oldyouth wrote: »

I did say that we, as a society, should assist people in those areas.

So my premium should be high because I didn't buy in a flood plain? Fudge that!

MugMugs wrote: »

I'm not really discussing the principles of premiums charged, I accept that they would be beyond reasonable however I do think that there should be an obligation for insurers to quote all reasonable risks and I see flooding as a reasonable risk.

But in some areas, flooding has become more of a guarantee than a risk, thus it'll cost the insurance companies more than what you're paying.

rovoagho

What annoys me is the terrible mapping of flood areas the insurance companies use. My area is designated a flood risk, despite the fact there hasn't been anything even close to a flood in the 3 years I've lived here, when the rest of the county is under water. Many insurers won't even quote me, and my house isn't even within the radius they themselves say isn't acceptable. It's way too general and they're way too blasé about it.

MugMugs

the_syco wrote: »

But in some areas, flooding has become more of a guarantee than a risk, thus it'll cost the insurance companies more than what you're paying.

And in some cases it's happening where it never previously existed due to planning allowed on further up or down flood plains.

Water has to go somewhere and if it can't hit a plain then it'll hit the next best place.

IF you've lived in your home for 40 years and never flooded and a local flood plain was allowed be built on causing your home to now flood, would you find that fair?

Marcusm

An enlightened government would look for a solution - either a government backed entity to take on uninsurable flood risks uch as the UK's Pool Re which provides terrorism cover - or more sensibly simply deny insurers the right to discriminate on flood risk grounds similar to community rating applicability in health insurance.

AudreyHepburn

MugMugs wrote: »

Motor insurance says different.

There's an obligation to meet a minimal level of cover albeit to third parties.

Frankly, I believe that insurers should have to cover all the usual risks reflected in an appropriate premium

If only it were that simple.

The problem with that is that homeowners wouldn't be able meet the kind of premiums required to have that kind cover and then there would uproar over that.

Also no insurance company could afford to keep the volume of claims that would arise from such cover.

Of course the government should step into help those affected, but this is a separate issue to insurance. Even Enda K can't force business to sell products if they don't want to.

The_Pretender

I can fully understand why you would be annoyed if the flooding has been caused by new bullding in the area and that has effected water drainage in areas where houses have been for years without problems, but if people actually bought houses that were built on floodplains then they can hardly expect imsurance companies to fork out for repairs can they?

MugMugs

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If only it were that simple.

The problem with that is that homeowners wouldn't be able meet the kind of premiums required to have that kind cover and then there would uproar over that.

Also no insurance company could afford to keep the volume of claims that would arise from such cover.

Of course the government should step into help those affected, but this is a separate issue to insurance. Even Enda K can't force business to sell products if they don't want to.

I didn't say it was workable. I merely said it was done in other contexts.