So it has nothing to do with the increase in populations all...

  1. 28,425 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 250
    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
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.