This is sort of on a tangent but still relevant I think.
A good friend of mine has a daughter who lives up in the Dandenong Ranges.
It's a hilly area. It is known for all the trees and ferns there and in summer, fires could be a danger.
In the recent storms, the wind brought down a big gum tree next to the daughter's house. It didn't damage the roof much as such but it demolished the heater, which needed to be replaced under insurance. There was $1000 excess on the policy so the company wasn't up for the complete cost.
The daughter pays her insurance monthly and just received her new bill.
Get this.
It has gone up $900 a month.
The company (Alliance, if anyone is wondering) said that it is because she is in a flood prone area.
She isn't. No river or creek nearby and up in the hills. They are confusing storm damage with flood damage, I think.
But in their own way, I think the insurance companies are like looters and need watching. They are going to take advantage of the recent floods and force anyone who makes any type of claim to look elsewhere or pay exorbitant prices.
