So it has nothing to do with the increase in populations all over the world in the last 50 years, the previously uninhabited areas that insurers didn’t care about because fires/floods or whatever didn’t effect their bottom lines now have policy holders scattered through it?
If it wasn’t for the fires/floods the insures might have a bit more scrutiny aimed at them for jacking up their premiums?
The families that have a home backing up onto bush land will get hit with a good rise in premium costs but so will the family living in an inner city high rise (probably not as steep but the reason used will be the same).
Wouldn’t it be great if they could refuse to re-insure dwellings in areas they consider to be high risk if they had to payback all premiums that the owners had paid since their last claim as that would show their commitment to protecting their business without appearing to be stomping on the little people
- Forums
- Political Debate
- 'Risks aren't worth it': QBE says parts of planet becoming uninsurable due to climate concerns
'Risks aren't worth it': QBE says parts of planet becoming uninsurable due to climate concerns, page-8
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
ACW
ACTINOGEN MEDICAL LIMITED
Will Souter, CFO
Will Souter
CFO
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online