Mr LUGG - 1998-02-25
The majority of residents and business owners in Katherine were not insured against the recent flood. Can the minister advise what knowledge he has of the situation with stormwater versus floodwater damage, and what action has been taken to enable residents to clarify this problem?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the honourable member is aware of the apprehension among residential and business owners in Katherine, especially those who have been told by some insurance companies not even to bother putting in a claim because they are not covered for flood damage. The government had a hydrology study undertaken by a consultant. The report, tabled by the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment in the Assembly last week, provides some people with good advice relating to some areas of town where inundation occurred through stormwater and localised flooding rather than flooding from the river itself. It states:
It appears that there were a number of properties that were inundated initially by this stormwater before the main flood reached the town.
That seems to give quite strong grounds for people to pursue claims where they have been affected in that way. I urge them to take account of that information and also the hydrology study that was undertaken by the Insurance Council of Australia which confirms that some areas of Katherine may have been subject to damage from stormwater and drainage. That study recommends further investigation of the matter, as did the Territory government's study.
There is a formal process that people should follow whereby, even if a claim is rejected by their insurance company, the claimant has the right to have the case referred for determination by a review panel under the general insurance inquiries and complaints scheme. That determination would be binding on the insurance company, but the claimant still has the right to take the matter to court if not satisfied. The process is as follows.
Firstly, all flood-affected residents should lodge a claim with their insurer even if they are doubtful about the validity of a claim. I urge people so affected to do that because it does trigger the process. Secondly, the insurance company may accept and pay the claim or commission a hydrological survey of the premises. Acting on this survey, the company may accept or deny the claim. If the claim is denied, the claimant may seek legal redress or complain to the claims review panel within 3 months. The panel will investigate the complaint and make a determination. Finally, the claimant can accept the determination or seek a legal remedy. Clearly, this process can and should be followed. I urge those people who have been advised - if the reports to me have been correct - that they should not
Page 6
bother putting in a claim because they are not covered to ignore that advice and lodge a claim against their insurer to ensure that the process is triggered.
This is a matter of great concern to a large number of residential and business owners in Katherine. I am pleased to be able to provide this information to them so that they can maximise their opportunities to pursue claims to the full extent and to use the formal process to their best advantage.
Page 7
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the honourable member is aware of the apprehension among residential and business owners in Katherine, especially those who have been told by some insurance companies not even to bother putting in a claim because they are not covered for flood damage. The government had a hydrology study undertaken by a consultant. The report, tabled by the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment in the Assembly last week, provides some people with good advice relating to some areas of town where inundation occurred through stormwater and localised flooding rather than flooding from the river itself. It states:
It appears that there were a number of properties that were inundated initially by this stormwater before the main flood reached the town.
That seems to give quite strong grounds for people to pursue claims where they have been affected in that way. I urge them to take account of that information and also the hydrology study that was undertaken by the Insurance Council of Australia which confirms that some areas of Katherine may have been subject to damage from stormwater and drainage. That study recommends further investigation of the matter, as did the Territory government's study.
There is a formal process that people should follow whereby, even if a claim is rejected by their insurance company, the claimant has the right to have the case referred for determination by a review panel under the general insurance inquiries and complaints scheme. That determination would be binding on the insurance company, but the claimant still has the right to take the matter to court if not satisfied. The process is as follows.
Firstly, all flood-affected residents should lodge a claim with their insurer even if they are doubtful about the validity of a claim. I urge people so affected to do that because it does trigger the process. Secondly, the insurance company may accept and pay the claim or commission a hydrological survey of the premises. Acting on this survey, the company may accept or deny the claim. If the claim is denied, the claimant may seek legal redress or complain to the claims review panel within 3 months. The panel will investigate the complaint and make a determination. Finally, the claimant can accept the determination or seek a legal remedy. Clearly, this process can and should be followed. I urge those people who have been advised - if the reports to me have been correct - that they should not
Page 6
bother putting in a claim because they are not covered to ignore that advice and lodge a claim against their insurer to ensure that the process is triggered.
This is a matter of great concern to a large number of residential and business owners in Katherine. I am pleased to be able to provide this information to them so that they can maximise their opportunities to pursue claims to the full extent and to use the formal process to their best advantage.
Page 7
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016