Brought to you by:

Council and residents dispute flood rulings

The council representing a number of southern Queensland towns affected by recent flooding is calling on insurers to commission a second hydrological report to better define what damage is covered.

Many insurers don’t cover flood damage, which is generally defined as damage caused by the inundation of normally dry land by water that has escaped the confines of a natural watercourse. Storm damage is generally insured.

This distinction regularly causes confusion among insurance customers, and the issue of flood cover is again making plenty of headlines in the wake of widespread flooding in Queensland in March.

Several insurers have refused to pay some claims, citing flood rather than storm damage as the reason.

But the Maranoa Regional Council says residents with flood cover have seen a quick response from their insurers, while others who aren’t covered say the hydrologist’s report on which their claims are being denied doesn’t agree with what councillors and residents observed during the flooding.

“It was a record flood, so it has behaved in ways that were not anticipated,” council CEO Stuart Randle told insuranceNEWS.com.au. “The hydrologist’s report seems to indicate that the flooding peak that occurred in Roma was the result of a floodwater peak that occurred more than 30km upstream, and then moved down the catchment.

“We know that is simply not the truth.”

Mr Randle says the peak in Roma occurred “quite a few hours” before the peak from upstream arrived.

“Even in the hydrologist’s report they have noted that the peak in the 1997 flood – which was our most recent big flood – took 15 hours to arrive. And yet they are saying the same peak this time took four hours to arrive.

“Common sense tells you that it just doesn’t happen that way… and it just doesn’t match with local observations either.

“So we are calling on the insurance companies, as a matter of transparency, to get an independent third party review of that hydrology report.”

Mr Randle says due to the record flood levels – rated as a one in 500-year event – many homeowners had no knowledge that they were at risk and no reason to make sure they were covered for flood.