Re:Tell HN: Flooded area in Queensland now the size of Texas
by jacques_chester on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @05:34PM
(#2098013)
Two things commonly arise in these cases.
1. Most insurers don't drive home the point that they're only insuring for storm and surge, not for flood ... until after the floods are done.
2. Flood insurance is usually set at very high prices. In some parts of the country it's consequently been made illegal to settle in flood zones. But these floods are so large that they're affecting areas that have never flooded before, where a rational person wouldn't have bought flood insurance anyway.
I'm honestly not sure if you'd be encouraging them to skip insurance in future. I suspect not, because the government payouts in past natural disasters have only been a fraction of the damage caused, whereas a good insurance policy could pay 100% or more of the cost. It's still rational to take the insurance if you can afford it.
1. Most insurers don't drive home the point that they're only insuring for storm and surge, not for flood ... until after the floods are done.
2. Flood insurance is usually set at very high prices. In some parts of the country it's consequently been made illegal to settle in flood zones. But these floods are so large that they're affecting areas that have never flooded before, where a rational person wouldn't have bought flood insurance anyway.
I'm honestly not sure if you'd be encouraging them to skip insurance in future. I suspect not, because the government payouts in past natural disasters have only been a fraction of the damage caused, whereas a good insurance policy could pay 100% or more of the cost. It's still rational to take the insurance if you can afford it.