Who has given RACQ Home insurance the flick ?

[Road Games]

Given the recent dramas and the fact RACQ Home and Contents Insurance. appears to be the BIGGEST culprit of rejecting claims for Flood Damage ( going by people whom i have a personal involvement with ) i changed my policy over to St George today ..

From $465 to $476 an increase of $11 BIG whoop i now have $120 000 contents insurance and $2 000 000 liability cover..against Flood and Storm Surge ...
NOT Tidal Surge but we are not on a river system anyway, we are however on a flood plain...

Body Corporate covers the building and foundations up to $500 000, i'm just curious if anyone else on here has made a switch given the recent unfortunate circumstances ..
Daz...

[LTDHO]

Ya lost me.

You didn't have flood cover, and you sook because you weren't paid?

[nstg8a]

i have my contents through westpac, they cover water in the house, simple as that, doesnt matter how it got there, its covered.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Ya lost me.

You didn't have flood cover, and you sook because you weren't paid?

As far as I know and from what I read in his post, he was not flooded, friends were and they had problems in the wording of their insurance. From what I read of his post, he has checked his policy and discovered he does not have flood cover so has changed and now does for only $11 more. Kind of a big issue here in QLD, especially considering many are predicting the flood risk is not over yet for this season.

We are with RACQ and when we read the policy carefully we discovered we are not covered for flood inundation from rivers, tidal or other water runoff. We are covered against localised flooding from heavy downpour. Basically if the water falls from the sky on our property faster than it can drain away and floods our house, we are covered, if it falls heavy somewhere else and then runs through our house as a part of widespread flooding, we are not. This does not matter too us as we are on top of a hill in a high suburb (if we flood then Brisbane is a dive attraction), many in QLD were caught out on this and did not have the flood cover they thought they did.

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Ya lost me.

You didn't have flood cover, and you sook because you weren't paid?

*Reply deleted before i posted it lucky for me *

[cs123]

Thanks for bringing this up, I never gave it much thought prior to last month. I'm not near any rivers but storm run off is something I need to consider. Just on principal I would probably change over to an insurance company that provides total cover.

[Sizey]

Correct me if I am wrong Daz but I believe RACQ was not a culprit as such, rather put in an unfortunate position at the time. From what has been said, I am led to believe that RACQ home insurance sector would have gone bankrupt and still not had enough money to cover the claims that they were inundated with.

This also would have also had an adverse effect upon the entirety of the company. So what were they to do? only pay half claims and go bankrupt? Pay only some claims and not others and still go under??

Food for thought

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by cs123

Just on principal I would probably change over to an insurance company that provides total cover.

Good call, most assume they are fully covered and don't read the PDS.

Originally Posted by Sizey

Correct me if I am wrong Daz but I believe RACQ was not a culprit as such, rather put in an unfortunate position at the time. From what has been said, I am led to believe that RACQ home insurance sector would have gone bankrupt and still not had enough money to cover the claims that they were inundated with.

This also would have also had an adverse effect upon the entirety of the company. So what were they to do? only pay half claims and go bankrupt? Pay only some claims and not others and still go under??

Food for thought

Exactly, if they had to pay all these people who didn't pay the premium in the first place, then they (like most insurers) would be broke over night.

[Yaw]

I have said it before and will say it again. I have NEVER SEEN or heard any insurance advert be that TV, Papers, or Radio that does not have a disclaimer along the lines of *Consider the PDS to ensure that the product meets your personal needs.

I would also like to point out EVERY policy sold in Australia must have a 14 day "cooling off period" So no matter how you purchase the product it bgives time for a PDS to be delivered by mail and for YOU to read and understand it.

I do feel sorry for people that have lost things and not been covered but it is not the fault of any insurer if the individual did not take the time to understand what they are purchasing or do so only on price. To assume all policies are the same is like saying a Ferrari is just the same as an XR8 in every way. They are totally different products for different sectors of the market.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Yaw

I have said it before and will say it again. I have NEVER SEEN or heard any insurance advert be that TV, Papers, or Radio that does not have a disclaimer along the lines of *Consider the PDS to ensure that the product meets your personal needs.

I would also like to point out EVERY policy sold in Australia must have a 14 day "cooling off period" So no matter how you purchase the product it bgives time for a PDS to be delivered by mail and for YOU to read and understand it.

I do feel sorry for people that have lost things and not been covered but it is not the fault of any insurer if the individual did not take the time to understand what they are purchasing or do so only on price. To assume all policies are the same is like saying a Ferrari is just the same as an XR8 in every way. They are totally different products for different sectors of the market.

So very true, price is not the only factor, it is how the complete package suits your needs and budget. The only way to work out if it fits is to read the PDS.

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by Sizey

Correct me if I am wrong Daz but I believe RACQ was not a culprit as such, rather put in an unfortunate position at the time. From what has been said, I am led to believe that RACQ home insurance sector would have gone bankrupt and still not had enough money to cover the claims that they were inundated with.

This also would have also had an adverse effect upon the entirety of the company. So what were they to do? only pay half claims and go bankrupt? Pay only some claims and not others and still go under??

Food for thought

Thanks for the reply Tom unfortunately a lot of people who have been paying there insurance diligently for years and now have nothing will STRONGLY disagree with your comments !
Somehow they need to start again with nothing and most people i know of are 50+ years old with there whole lifes earnings tied up in their house..

I dont know the how's and why's insurance companies operate and that isnt why i started this thread..

If one person by reading this now realises they have no cover before the worse was to happen then i have done my job.

Complacency can lead to heartache very quickly by the looks of this last few months..
As Gecko said check your PDF's and organise your insurance accordingly...

We couldn't get flood insurance previously but now we have thank you St George...

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by DAZZLER351

Thanks for the reply Tom unfortunately a lot of people who have been paying there insurance diligently for years and now have nothing will STRONGLY disagree with your comments !
Somehow they need to start again with nothing and most people i know of are 50+ years old with there whole lifes earnings tied up in their house.. .

Sure, I feel for those who have suffered a loss, who doesn't.

Let me ask you, if I was buying Cheeseburgers for years and oneday I went to MacDonalds starving, am I entitled to a big mac for the price of a cheese burger?
Is so, then isn't everyone?

Big picture here is that people are more concerned about their initial cost (premium) and not so much what they are getting or entitled too. So when when the S*** hit's the fan they expect everything an some more and get mad/upset when they don't.

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Sure, I feel for those who have suffered a loss, who doesn't.

Let me ask you, if I was buying Cheeseburgers for years and oneday I went to MacDonalds starving, am I entitled to a big mac for the price of a cheese burger?
Is so, then isn't everyone?

Big picture here is that people are more concerned about their initial cost (premium) and not so much what they are getting or entitled too. So when when the S*** hit's the fan they expect everything an some more and get mad/upset when they don't.

You are entitled to make a comment , but after your first post addressed to me i wont be taking notice of anything you have to offer at this point ...

I hope for your sake a meteor doesnt fall out of the sky and wipe out your house and car but then again you are probably loaded and wont care about the insurance bouncing an attack from Mars claim ??

[nstg8a]

a big issue with some of the insurance pds's is that they can be quite hard to follow, which is why there is now a big push for them to be re-written in plain english, not techno mumbo jumbo...

also im sure i read that most of the big insurance companies have their own natural disaster insurance, so they are claiming themselves, so they can pay out on their customers claims.
They may hurt a little now, but you watch, they will be back to making massive profits very quickly.

[Road Games]

Yep they must have a contingency plan for disasters like this.. Check this thread http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...17#post3559417

It isn't over yet by a long shot , my reason for this thread was to remind people about their policy's fine print who gives a crap about cheeseburgers ??
I spent the best part of a week assisting people i have never met and it cost me plenty, not to mention the risk to my own health ... the commaderie from here was an absolute High light and by and large the Forum spirit was alive and well as for a moment all our petty in-differences were put aside and we all bonded as one towards a common goal ....

Nice initial post LTDHO but i wasn't having a "sook" i have busted my **** and bank balance helping those less fortunate than myself and my mission isnt finished yet ..

I dont need to beat my chest on here i would just like a little bit of respect before my posts are taken WAY out of context by you that is all ....

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by DAZZLER351

my reason for this thread was to remind people about their policy's fine print who gives a crap about cheeseburgers ??

He was making a very basic analogy is all, perhaps aimed at the average home insurance buying market. :-)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy

Check de insurance fine print, if its not up to requirement; replace contract.

[davocol]

I think the underlying issue is the cunningness of the insurance companies to bury the specifics of the policy inside the PDS. The whole industry needs a huge overhaul.

While I don't believe ignorance of not reading the specifics is an excuse, the insurance companies should be obliged to make the documents easier to read. A one pager that states "What am I covered for" and "What aren't I covered for would be sufficient" instead of the BS legal wording they go into to baffle the person seeking the insurance only for them to be knocked back on a technicality.

The issue crops up every time there is a natural disaster and every time we have the same discussion, the fact is people don't read their PDS and get ****ed off with their insurance companies when they knock back their claims. That is bad business and poor customer service.

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by davocol

I think the underlying issue is the cunningness of the insurance companies to bury the specifics of the policy inside the PDS. The whole industry needs a huge overhaul.

While I don't believe ignorance of not reading the specifics is an excuse, the insurance companies should be obliged to make the documents easier to read. A one pager that states "What am I covered for" and "What aren't I covered for would be sufficient" instead of the BS legal wording they go into to baffle the person seeking the insurance only for them to be knocked back on a technicality.

The issue crops up every time there is a natural disaster and every time we have the same discussion, the fact is people don't read their PDS and get ****ed off with their insurance companies when they knock back their claims. That is bad business and poor customer service.

First of all I HATE the fac t I am defending RACQ but as the original OP has used this particular company as an example, I will use the RACQ PDS to show just how "Plain English" and easy policy booklets are to read these days.

Page 3 of contents shows this.

Optional Covers for extra peace of mind 44
Motor burnout 44
Advanced cover 45
Group and/or selected personal items cover 46
Pet cover 48
Flood and storm surge 49
Landlord’s fixtures and fittings 49
Mortgagee’s interest in a home unit 50

From the contents alone you can easily see Flood and Storm surge are "Optional cover" meaning it is optional for the customer/policy holder to take it out.

Page 15 sets out what is covered on one side
For Damage aused by weather this is covered
Flash flood and
stormwater run-off
A sudden flood caused by
heavy rain that fell no more
than 24 hours prior to the flash
flood or stormwater run-off

Damage Caused by weather what is not covered:
Loss or damage caused:
• by flood;
• to swimming pools or spas and their
covers, liners and the like;
• to the water in swimming pools or
spas;
• by water being absorbed through
floors, external and internal walls of
your home (including rising damp)
and any subsequent loss or damage to
contents including carpets;
• by hydrostatic pressure building
up below or behind any part of
your home or structure including a
swimming pool, spa or tank;
• to garden borders, paths, driveways,
paving, free standing or retaining
walls (whether or not part of the
home), tennis courts and other playing
surfaces;
• by storm surge or any other action of
the sea;
• by power surge;
• during the first 48 hours of the initial
period of insurance of this policy
unless we have issued it to you:
• in conjunction with your signing a
contract to purchase the home; or
• to replace a policy with us or
another insurer from the date and
time that other policy expired.

Under the words with special meanings on page 8 it states this:

Flood: Rising water which enters your home as a
result of it running off or overflowing from any
origin or cause.
This policy does not cover flood unless we have
agreed and it is shown on your certificate of
insurance.
Flash flood and
stormwater run-off:
A sudden flood caused by heavy rain that fell
no more than 24 hours prior to the flash flood
or stormwater run-off.


Now please tell me how much more plain english this could possibly be?
I see no legal jargon anywhere within what I have shown you above.
There is no fine print.
It is pretty straight ford to me.

Once again, even though I do feel for people that have lost thier property and belongings. But when a PDS from the insurer of the policy holders choice sets it out that simply how can you possibly blame the insurer for not covering them?

Someone has mentioned Insurers having reinsurance- this is true, how ever a payment of a claim that would be outside of what the policy covers (known as ex-gratia payments) are not covered by reinsurance as its not what the insurer was covered for.

[Road Games]

Awesome post mate , thanks for pointing the facts out ...

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Yaw

Someone has mentioned Insurers having reinsurance- this is true, how ever a payment of a claim that would be outside of what the policy covers (known as ex-gratia payments) are not covered by reinsurance as its not what the insurer was covered for.

well we dont really know that, unless you have access to the 're-insurance' pds... who knows what conditions they have, but considering the financial might of the average large insurance company you can bet their own lawyers would have all bases covered to protect themselves.

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

well we dont really know that, unless you have access to the 're-insurance' pds... who knows what conditions they have, but considering the financial might of the average large insurance company you can bet their own lawyers would have all bases covered to protect themselves.

Reinsurance is simple. It covers whatever the PDS to policy eg your home and contents policy. It covers large events. just as you the customer have an excess so to does the insurer on reinsurance.

With each large event eg cyclone Yasi, every cyclone claim lodged for that event will be given a catogery code to add to the claim. You the policy holder will never see this. It is purley for accounting purposes. So the insurer can go into thier computer system to see how much exactly was paid on each claim or is expected to be paid and calculates a total.
Every type of payment also has a code, so if it is an "ex gratia" payment this will not be included in the total as these payments are basically goodwill and not covered in any other way by the said policy.

So the insurer can see how much they have spent on claims for any 1 event.
The reinsurance excess for Suncorp is $350 million before the reinsurer will cover over and above that amount. RACQ has a $10 Million excess (recently in the news) but basically it means RACQ will be out $10 Million if they need to claim the reinsurance.

[Road Games]

And given your help champ in the recent dramas up here i hope i didnt hit a nerve in mentioning RACQ ??

I was passing on my information not having a dig at them solely, i would have run out of room in the title heading mentioning all the companies that have been very un-AUSTRALIAN !!!

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Yaw

Reinsurance is simple. It covers whatever the PDS to policy eg your home and contents policy. It covers large events. just as you the customer have an excess so to does the insurer on reinsurance.

With each large event eg cyclone Yasi, every cyclone claim lodged for that event will be given a catogery code to add to the claim. You the policy holder will never see this. It is purley for accounting purposes. So the insurer can go into thier computer system to see how much exactly was paid on each claim or is expected to be paid and calculates a total.
Every type of payment also has a code, so if it is an "ex gratia" payment this will not be included in the total as these payments are basically goodwill and not covered in any other way by the said policy.

So the insurer can see how much they have spent on claims for any 1 event.
The reinsurance excess for Suncorp is $350 million before the reinsurer will cover over and above that amount. RACQ has a $10 Million excess (recently in the news) but basically it means RACQ will be out $10 Million if they need to claim the reinsurance.

thats good info...

350 mill excess.... ouch

[Sorted]

Maybe after recent events in the last couple of years will make people realise that it is important to read the PDS - BushFires, Hail, Cyclones, Floods, Storms etc etc

Part blame can be made of society today wanting everything for nothing - this may work with other items but mostly does not work with insurance. And as society is after cheaper this is how most insurers advertise.

Also everyone is trying to save money with their annual budget and insurance is one of the top items on the hit list to reduce how much it costs.

Even on AFF there are alot of threads about what insurer is the cheapest and even when alot of members recommend a perfect insurer for their needs they won't change if it's more expensive.

Most adds from insurers you see on Tv in recent years their main objective that they want to get across to potential clients is that they are CHEAPER!

When have you seen an add on TV from a home insurer telling you they include flood? Yes some adds have some of the benefits on their adds BUT mostly it's about how they will save you.

And finally alot of people dont seem to have time to go through the pds, they just want to pay the premium and have it done until the next year.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by DAZZLER351

Given the recent dramas and the fact RACQ Home and Contents Insurance. appears to be the BIGGEST culprit of rejecting claims for Flood Damage ( going by people whom i have a personal involvement with ) i changed my policy over to St George today ..

From $465 to $476 an increase of $11 BIG whoop i now have $120 000 contents insurance and $2 000 000 liability cover..against Flood and Storm Surge ...
NOT Tidal Surge but we are not on a river system anyway, we are however on a flood plain...

Body Corporate covers the building and foundations up to $500 000, i'm just curious if anyone else on here has made a switch given the recent unfortunate circumstances ..
Daz...

I did a check a long time ago. RACQ does have flood cover on home and contents, but only if its an investment property. None if you own AND live in it
AAMI are good if you own AND live in it, but no good if an investment property.
Its all about research.

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

I did a check a long time ago. RACQ does have flood cover on home and contents, but only if its an investment property. None if you own AND live in it
AAMI are good if you own AND live in it, but no good if an investment property.
Its all about research.

Yep thanks for the reply mate AAMI were up there as well in our considerations as well, its all about the fine print ..

We went with our mob because of the answers to our questions up front ..
Daz..x..