Insurers, never the most popular companies, are used to being natural catastrophe whipping boys.

For politicians it’s an easy score – ramp up the rhetoric about insurers dragging their heels on insurance payouts, and sit back and count the political points.

Not only does it reinforce the view of insurers as Scrooge-like hoarders, it directs attention from a government’s own clean-up work, or lack thereof.

In the journalism game, bagging insurers is also a hardy perennial, and no matter how fast the rate of speedy claims and the number of satisfied customers, half a dozen irate and often misguided talkback radio callers can unravel weeks or even years of good work.

State governments understand the problems of non-insurance and underinsurance, but instead of addressing the cause of the problem, they all too often deflect the blame on to insurers for “not doing enough” to help those in need.

Politicians also understand that the more money insurers pay to homeowners, the less comes out of the public purse – a lesson the government of Victorian Premier John Brumby knows from the Black Saturday fires, when it offered a one-off $50,000 grant for owner-occupiers whose homes were destroyed, with an additional $40,000 available to some victims.

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) called on the payments to be halted, as they disadvantaged those with the foresight to take out insurance. ICA’s ill-timed comments unleashed an outcry, and the ghost of Scrooge resurfaced.

But besides the council’s insensitive commentary, insurers generally received good marks for their handling of fire claims.

Now, just 12 months after the disaster, fire has given way to flooding and insurers, once praised for their efforts in the wake of Black Saturday, are again being chastised.

Premier John Brumby fired the first round last week when he was quoted in the Herald Sun newspaper saying insurers needed to “lift their game”.

“They need to be out there, helping families and giving families the benefit of the doubt,” he thundered. “We have had a number of representations where the insurance companies need to lift their game.”

Just who and how many these representations comprise are unknown, but the Premier’s timing was as predicable as his comments were misguided.

In the past 15 years or so insurers have taken big strides in their disaster response co-ordination and payment of claims.

Insurers understand the ramifications that poor service and publicity can have in the long run.

In the case of post-disaster Melbourne, Allianz’s Nicholas Schofield says some complaints about insurers’ service are inevitable given the sheer number of claims.

“We have activated our emergency response plan, which includes diverting significant resources from other states to deal with the large number of claims being received as a result of the storm,” he said. Most other insurance companies have similar procedures.

The biggest complaint levelled at insurers – that they refuse to honour insurance claims – is refuted by the facts. More than 98% of claims are paid without fuss.

But that won’t stop politicians placing unfair pressure on insurers, especially when it takes the pressure off them. At about the same time as John Brumby was sounding off with a bit of populist pap, his Queensland counterpart Anna Bligh was also finding the temptation irresistible.

Noting that some residents of flood-devastated Charleville and other rural centres had insured with companies that didn’t cover flood – or with insurers that were allegedly nit-picking over whether it was a flood at all (the reports aren’t too clear what it was really all about) – Ms Bligh let fly with this choice sound-bite.

“What I hope is that insurance companies take a compassionate view of what has happened. Right now these communities need a helping hand and I hope that insurance companies don’t quibble over the small print – that they get on with the job of helping people.”

Until the pesky reign of natural disasters is somehow ended, or non-insurance ceases to exist, it seems insurers will always be forced to wear a target on their back.