Insurance true colours!

[goldnugget]

Hey guys, remember I posted about the sister inlaw following up a claim on the day she got flooded and was told on the phone they were fully covered? Well as some of you suspected they knocked it back..but not only did they knock it back, but as she was 'most certainly covered for all damage' as told by the operator that took her claim, they paid her an emergency advance on the claim to help start geting cleaned up and buy essentials that were lost (clothes, etc). Well since the assessor has knocked the claim they are demanding the emergency payment back as well...I mean WTF is wrong with some of these insurers? She's too upset to discuss it in detail at the moment, but as soon as I find out who its with I'll shout it out from the rooftops.

Ontop of this her husband is a bank manager at a major city branch..I'm guessing he will be happy to speak openly to his clients who not to insure their asetts with.

I can see Suncorp cornering the Queensland insurance market in the space of the next few months, they are the only ones with automatic flood coverage, we are certainly going to go with them.

But What a class act asking for their advance back. :angry:

[marty]

reading a news article today, apparently APIA (pensioners only?) and GIO automatically include flood cover too.

Marty

[Keen-as-fisho]

Mate thats sad and really low on the insurers part.

[Gazza]

I feel your frustration to say yes then no is WRONG

But a lot of people are going to experience more of that

I have seen people tip out cutlery draws into the rubbish heaps of pots and pans out door settings etc things that are salvageable

The Insurers will start to crack down and start rejecting certain claims for items like I mentioned :pinch:

Don't get me wrong Bud I'm not saying that was the case with your sister

It's just a lot of people are finding out the hard way to read the fine print

flooding by storms ripping your roof off are ok but a rising river is not typical of fine print

ADD on tv your covered against flooding but the truth is under sub claus z of act x you have no claim :evil:

I'm researching mine and looking for the best option

Cheers Gaz

[daveylad]

http://www.australianfishing.com.au/forum/70-television-videos-magazines-books-and-press/304834-suncorp-insurance-embargo

wow, not surprised though what did some people say after all its a business, I guess they are going to get out of it whenever they can

[Davo_Dinkum]

i have heard of insurance company's doing a few sly things in the last few days .

the ses told the goodna scouts that they had to get rid of plastic items that had been in the flood waters .the plastic gets contaminated in some way.esky .plastic tub sort of stuff .

seams most non plastic stuff can be cleaned and is ok to use .

i have heard of and seen a lot of people throwing out pretty much everything as well.

poor buggers are devastated and think f it all and turf the lot out ,i think .

if they where not in such distress they mite be thinking normal and trying to save everything they can .

[fishingnut]

I do work for afew insurance companies and there absolute womens genitals!!!! not suprised to here this at all as i deal with it on a daily basis

[John]

maybe needs to contact:

Insurance Council of Australia: 1300 728 228

[goldnugget]

Thanks Johnny, will pass the number on...

after checking their website they seem to be more of an orginisation that loks out for their own regigested members (orginisations) rather than for consumers...I did find the contact instead for the Financial Ombudsman at www.fos.org.au so I'll pass that on instead. Thanks again.

[shortie]

It will never happen to me i dont need flood cover. Storm cover is plenty. How many times have i heard this.

Yes it's going to be tough for some people, but unfortunatelly they either didnt read their policies or didn't understand them.

I fail to see how the insurance companies can be blamed for this.

I feel for the people that have lost everything or have sustained damage as does the rest of the country. But blaming insurance companies for not paying because the victims failed to have the appropriate cover is stupid.

I also think you will find that the person on the phone from the insurance company is not allowed to say "Yes you are fully covered, we will pay"

I believe they may of said "It looks like you are covered in your policy however we will send an assessor around to look at the damage."

There are way to many emotions flying around at the moment and people are not interpretting what they are being told.

[ipk18]

also there are some things you can shop around for to get a better price but insurance is not one of them as said by someone else i do most of my work with insurance companys and it is funny that i have suncorp for all my policys but i think they are the worst to work for but they pay out, where racq are the best to work for but they screw people over all the time

[goldnugget]

I understand what you are saying Shortie, but in this case the day her house went under she called them to see where she stood, was told she was fully covered on the phone and put in the claim, they payed her a downpayment to get the ball rolling and buy emergency suplies and then backflipped asking for the money back they had already paid. If there was a possibility she may not have been covered, I bet my gonads they wouldnt have parted with a cent to begin with. So in this case I believe that the insurance company did the wrong thing.

[daveylad]

It will never happen to me i dont need flood cover. Storm cover is plenty. How many times have i heard this.

Yes it's going to be tough for some people, but unfortunatelly they either didnt read their policies or didn't understand them.

I fail to see how the insurance companies can be blamed for this.

I feel for the people that have lost everything or have sustained damage as does the rest of the country. But blaming insurance companies for not paying because the victims failed to have the appropriate cover is stupid.

I also think you will find that the person on the phone from the insurance company is not allowed to say "Yes you are fully covered, we will pay"

I believe they may of said "It looks like you are covered in your policy however we will send an assessor around to look at the damage."

There are way to many emotions flying around at the moment and people are not interpretting what they are being told.

shortie: dont tell me the fine print in insurance policies isnt worded to confuse and bewilder people even the state and federal govenments are looking a making new policies for the wording of Insurance because of the confusion they have caused, This confusion was deliberate by some person inan office that got brownie points to save his company money. whats your definition of Flood / Indundation / stormwater/ overflow/ drainage each insurance company has their own interpretation . Maybe I'm being naive but I dont think its becasue they want to help people as someone else said they are in Business...Business to make Money. Insurance has historically been worded to be longwinded and confusing policy writers were paid on the amount of words they could put into a policy so they made it long winded and all that does in confuse they should be Concise, Precise and succint, mine arrives in the post nowdays and its a small booklet with about 40 pages basically its a book that in a broad sense spends one sentance saying what you are covered for and 200 sentances covering their own arse if there is some damage and Yes its a good company (Veterans Affairs Insurance )I'm with but they still cover their backsides.

There my soliloquy has ended

[shortie]

Wow. The State and Federal Governments sticking their noses into the wording of a document, so its going to go from confusing to eben more confusing.

I assume you have read a government document.

Legalise is always difficult to understand, thats why there are definitions on their terminology accompanying the document in the product disclosure statement.

Please point me in the direct of fact where you can find and i quote" Insurance has historically been worded to be longwinded and confusing policy writers were paid on the amount of words they could put into a policy"

Modern day insurance or insurance as we know it today comes stems from 1666 and The Great Fire of London.

Of course they are out to make money, of course they have to be precise as to what they cover in their document. And they have to cover their own arses, and have to support reasons and evidence to justify why according to their policies if the do decide to knock back a claim, or they will find themselves is severe legal trouble.

SO i really dont see your point. If insurance companies are so bad then dont take out an insurance policy. OR alternativelly amend their policies and ask for a quote on the amendment.

Or simply keep your hard earn in a bank account over the 30-50 years working life and use the savings you have accumulated as your insurance.

IT all a calculated risk both on the policy holders and the insurance company. But the insurance company is able to transfer or distribute the risk better than than the average person.

The assessors and the people working for these companies feel for peoples losses as well. Im sure they are heartboken if the cant guarantee payment to everyone. Imagine how much easier their job would be and how much cheaper taking out a policy would be if people didnt try to defraud these companies on a daily basis.

[kriso]

i deal with credit documents and insurance documents a fair bit with work, i have found with the product guide and statement ( it has that little dictionary bit that gives there interpretation of each word) it is not to hard to work out what is or isnt covered. As for small print - alota people complain that they arent covered because whats in the small print--- my advise is to read the lot especialy the fine print yes it can be a ardous task with the amount of jargon but insurance is ment to give you reassurance that if shit happens your covered- if you havent read your policy in full and understand exactly what your covered for it is hard to blame them, dont get me wrong i dont like insurance companies and hate dealing with them when it comes time to make a claim it can be like drawing blood out of a stone and there not so forth coming when you enquire about their product with the nitty gritty stuff that usualy is the result of a cancelled claim but in the end its your money that your handing over and you want what your paying for if you dont do the work to find out what your paying for then i reckon your better off having none and taking the gamble because really your allready doing that - suggest the people saying Suncorp has automatic flood cover go with them have a read of their product statement too ( i'm with suncorp and have read the policy regarding flood coverage , you will be suprised the arguement you could end up in with them over the flood we just had)

[daveylad]

HOW LEGAL LANGUAGE EVOLVED

Speech notes

David C. Elliott

Edmonton, Alberta

25 March 1991

Scriveners

Obscurity, longwindedness and convoluted language were helped along by legal scriveners :silly:

who were paid by the word. It was they who padded their pay by using said, aforesaid, herein, hereof, hereinafter, hereunder, hereinbefore, aforesaid, wherein, whereon, whereas, therein, thereon, therefore and the like, ad nauseam. Even now there

seems to be a concern that if a document, an agreement or a decision is not

long enough,

clients or the parties will feel they didn’t get their moneys worth.

Source:
/>http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:baX3XOlJuVAJ:www.davidelliott.ca/papers/howlegallanguageevolved.

doc+victorian+

england+legal+documents+words+lengthy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Will Rogers once wrote that "the minute you read something and

you can't understand it you can almost be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer.

Then if you give it to another lawyer to read and he don't know just what it means,

why then you can be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer."

Theres even a society for them heres a picture to prove it :laugh:

[crazywalrus]

No opinion her on your case GN but I think people sort of need to take some responsibility with insurance. I insure my house for around $1600 per year. I think that the average payout from the floods would be around $60 000 to $100 000 (a guess) but if this is a 1 in 30 year event than your premium needs to be at least $2000 to $3000 to cover the payout. this does not cover the cost of business for the time and profit payout to the shareholders. If I was paying for flood damage in a flood area I would expect to pay to in excess of $5000 or more for the premium. Just my opinion. These companies are not charities. we get what we pay for.

[shortie]

HOW LEGAL LANGUAGE EVOLVED

Speech notes

David C. Elliott

Edmonton, Alberta

25 March 1991

Scriveners

Obscurity, longwindedness and convoluted language were helped along by legal scriveners :silly:

who were paid by the word. It was they who padded their pay by using said, aforesaid, herein, hereof, hereinafter, hereunder, hereinbefore, aforesaid, wherein, whereon, whereas, therein, thereon, therefore and the like, ad nauseam. Even now there

seems to be a concern that if a document, an agreement or a decision is not

long enough,

clients or the parties will feel they didn’t get their moneys worth.

Source:
/>http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:baX3XOlJuVAJ:www.davidelliott.ca/papers/howlegallanguageevolved.

doc+victorian+

england+legal+documents+words+lengthy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Will Rogers once wrote that "the minute you read something and

you can't understand it you can almost be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer.

Then if you give it to another lawyer to read and he don't know just what it means,

why then you can be sure it was drawn up by a lawyer."

Theres even a society for them heres a picture to prove it :laugh:

[attachment=29295]scriviners.jpg[/attachment]

As with everything there can be another argument. That seems to be 1 person opinion rather based on fact. Granted he is more educated and more highly regarded than me. But i to can Google.

Here is a paragraph that i found

"Perhaps a more legitimate justification for the longwindedness of the profession derives from its adversarial nature. Virtually any legal document is liable, at some point in its existence, to be picked apart by an opponent eager to exploit a loophole or ambiguity in hopes of wiggling out of an agreement or contesting a will. Legislation is no exception; almost any statute will be subjected to intense scrutiny by lawyers trying to poke holes in it on behalf of their clients. Those who draft such documents must anticipate these attacks. Therefore, they obsessively try to cover every base, plug every loophole, and deal with every remotely possible contingency. The result is ever longer, denser, and more complicated prose."

[Davo_Dinkum]

this is like a dog chasing its tail .

[daveylad]

SHORTY, you asked for : Please point me in the direct of fact where you can find and i quote" Insurance has historically been worded to be longwinded and confusing policy writers were paid on the amount of words they could put into a policy"

I didnt just google it, well I googled the above but I knew it was there somewhere (good memory) saw it on a documentry somewhere, As for Granted he is more educated and more highly regarded than me. But i to can Google. I hope you mean Mr Elliott? I've just got too much time on my hands while its raining (dying for a fish):laugh:

Take a break have a horlicks and lets see what happens, Had a nibble no not a bite all finished You won :laugh:

[ellicat]

The End