Despite being refused a policy renewal by her insurer, business owner Leisa Cody wants to dispel rumours that house and contents insurance is impossible to obtain in Rochester.
When Ms Cody tried to re-insure her home and investment property with her existing insurer, she was refused a quote — despite her original policy stating she would be eligible for renewal, even if she had made a previous claim.
“When I tried to re-insure online for both my old address and new one it came back with ‘we cannot offer you insurance at this time’,” she said.
“My existing insurer was ING and the underwriter was Auto and General.”
She then requested an online quote with APIA, which came back at $5000.
Her previous premiums, which she paid in May of each year, sat at $1297 and were inclusive of flood cover.
“I’m happy to pay the $5000 because I’d rather be out of pocket $5000 than lose $700,000 in building and contents if the flooding was to happen again, but the issue is that there are going to be people that cannot afford it,” Ms Cody said.
“I do know at least that I can get coverage with APIA, so that sort of shot the rumour down that no insurance companies will touch Rochy.
“Now when I hear people say that, I just say ‘that’s not correct, you just need to shop around because it’s true that some companies are saying no, but there are others that are saying yes’.”
But the devastating reality for some is that with the exponential increase in policy prices, insurance may no longer be an affordable option.
Ms Cody said the process of dealing with insurance companies had exacerbated the anxiety that people were already feeling from the traumatic flooding event.
She has been fighting tooth and nail since October to receive what she believed was a fair amount for the contents of her house.
After writing off her house almost immediately, she said a number of assessors attended her address to evaluate the cost of her possessions.
“When it came to the contents of the house, I had to fight hard,” she said.
“They were trying to offer me $85,000 when I’m covered for $250,000.
“Another assessor said $90,000, but my argument was that our first lot of possessions had been taken off the front lawn and tipped into a tip truck, never to be seen again, and the second thing was that I watched all of the assessors and not one of them opened a drawer or a cupboard or anything to see what items were inside, they just stood in a room, took a photo and then moved on.
“They’d written my house off without a blink of an eye, so what would make them think that my contents survived?”
Going back and forth time and time again with the assessors was distressing enough, but Ms Cody said it was the insensitive behaviour and attitude of some of the assessors that really appalled her.
“One of the assessors said to me that my furniture looks like low-end quality and I said ‘I’d love to see what your furniture looks like after you’ve had water go through your house and shed’,” she said.
“Nothing, no matter how high end it is, is going to look going to look nice after being hit with mud, water and who knows what else.”
After months of deliberations and a threat to involve solicitors, Ms Cody finally walked away with $200,000 about two weeks ago.
But she continues to worry about vulnerable people in the community who may be pressured into agreeing to something that was less than they deserved.
“It’s just fortunate that I’m stubborn, because I genuinely think they sometimes just try to wear people down until they just psychologically burn out and don’t pursue the insurance any more,” she said.
“The purpose of having insurance is that it’s there if you need to use it and that you won’t have to haggle for every little thing.
“I know of countless clients that have just cracked it and walked away from the whole process. A lot of people are now going to the 4Rs to seek legal help.”
Ms Cody, her three children and husband have been living in a friend’s unit in Echuca West until they can move into their investment property in Rochester in the upcoming weeks.
Fortunately, their investment property had no tenants occupying it when it flooded.
They still have the eventual goal of one day returning to their home in Moore St.
“People say ‘oh wow, you’re lucky’ about me having insurance and I just think there’s no luck being washed out like that,” she said.
“I see us as lucky compared to other people in our situation because I will have a house to live in and I did my research on insurance years ago, but that doesn’t take away from the trauma, the upheaval and the displacement in the meantime.
“We’re still living out of boxes, the insurance could take ages and we don’t have a lot of money at our disposal, so we’re really cautious about how we spend.”
For the issues surrounding insurance to be solved, Ms Cody said the government first needed to put plans in place to prevent the Eppalock catchment from spilling and flooding downstream communities again.
“To me, Eppalock is the starting place,” she said.
“We need to get some sort of mitigation in place there because if the flood risk is minimised at the catchment, then the risk of flood decreases and the insurance prices may not be as harsh.”