Severe Winds And Flooding – IFSO Scheme Urges Careful Action During Clean Up
Press Release – Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman
The first thing to remember is to only start dealing with the clean up when its safe to do so. Then, when its safe, make sure you document everything before starting on the clean up.
With flooding in the South Island and damaging winds battering the Capital, the Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme (IFSO Scheme) is reminding homeowners to take the right steps in the aftermath, to avoid issues with their insurance later on.
'The first thing to remember is to only start dealing with the clean up when it's safe to do so. Then, when it's safe, make sure you document everything before starting on the clean up. Take photos or videos of the damage and make a detailed list of affected items. Without proof – like photos or receipts – insurers can decline claims. A list on its own often won't be enough,' says Karen Stevens, Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman.
Making contact with your insurer before carrying out repairs is important too. 'You are expected to do essential repairs to prevent further loss, but you should only do this after talking to your insurer, as insurers and homeowners don't always agree on what counts as essential,' Stevens warns. 'For example, getting rid of carpets or disposing of wind-damaged furniture may seem obvious, but always check with your insurer first. If in doubt – check it out.'
Stevens also says that acting early can make a difference. 'Make your claim as soon as possible, and ask questions. There's no such thing as a silly question when it comes to understanding your insurance. Check exactly what you need to do to make a claim,' she says.
Knowing your cover can help manage expectations during this high-stress time. 'You need to understand whether your home is insured for full replacement or just a set amount (sum insured), and whether your contents are covered for replacement value or indemnity value – which factors in depreciation.'
'With vehicles, it's important to know whether your car is insured for market value or agreed value,' says Stevens. 'That will determine the amount you may receive if your vehicle is damaged by flooding or flying debris during a storm.'
The IFSO Scheme recommends the following steps after severe weather:
Document damage thoroughly before discarding anything.
Take photos or videos of all affected items.
Locate receipts and any proof of ownership where possible.
Contact your insurer early and ask questions.
Check with your insurer before making non-essential repairs, and only carry out urgent repairs needed to prevent further loss.
For those dealing with the aftermath, Stevens says a little knowledge can go a long way. 'Understanding your cover and documenting damage properly can reduce stress and help get your claim sorted sooner, and avoid issues down the track,' she says.
The IFSO Scheme resolves complaints about insurance and financial services, and is independent, fair, and free for consumers. People can make a complaint to the IFSO Scheme at www.ifso.nz or by calling 0800 888 202.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
24-05-2025
- RNZ News
NZ-born businessman Glenn Renwick dies in Florida multi-vehicle car accident
Glenn Renwick was the former chief executive and chairman of the US insurance company Progressive Corporation. Photo: Supplied / United States Securities and Exchange Commission Well-regarded Dunedin-born businessman Glenn Renwick has died in a multi-vehicle crash in Florida. Renwick was the former chief executive and chairman of the US insurance company, Progressive Corporation, where he introduced initiatives to modernise the firm. In a statement released a few days ago, Progressive said Renwick had made an "enormous" contribution to the company. "During a highly successful 32-year career at Progressive, half of which he served as CEO, Glenn's integrity, leadership skills, business acumen, and innovative approach dramatically affected the financial and competitive position of the company," the statement said. "Over that 32-year period, Progressive's annual revenues grew from about US$750 million [NZ$1.25 billion] in 1986 when Glenn was hired, to nearly US$27b [NZ$45b] at the time of his retirement. "We extend our deepest condolences to Glenn's family and friends, many of whom continue to carry on his legacy with the company." Renwick was listed by American business magazine Forbes twice as one of the 40 most admired chief executives in the world. Despite moving to the US after graduating from university, he kept ties with New Zealand by supporting the planting of tens of thousands of trees, encouraging the re-establishment of native bird populations and promoting sustainable farming techniques. In an obituary for Renwick published in Ohio, a link was provided for donations so that more trees could be planted in his memory. Renwick died on 16 April, just short of his 70th birthday. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
19-05-2025
- RNZ News
Tower posts improved profit, plans to expand risk based pricing
File photo. Tower said it would extend its risk-based approach. Photo: supplied Insurance group Tower has posted an improved profit on the back of increased premium income, lower costs and reduced claims. Key numbers for the six months ended March compared with a year ago: The New Zealand insurer said better weather led to a lower level of ordinary claims, - so-called business as usual claims - while premium income rose as it attracted new business and it kept a lid on its costs. "These positive first-half results reflect Tower's commitment to delivering sustainable, profitable growth by upholding core insurance fundamentals: robust risk selection and pricing, and claims management," interim chief executive Paul Johnston said. The company said it had improved risk selection, with 91 percent of new policies sold in the first half rated low or very low flood risk, compared with 86 percent the year before. However, reduced-risk policies and greater market competition limited revenue growth, and there was a fall in vehicle insurance premiums because of rate reductions and a tightening in its risk appetite. Johnston said it would extend its risk based approach. "This year we will expand risk-based pricing to include sea surge and landslide risks, helping our customers better understand their risks and how these factors impact their insurance pricing." Tower said it was still paying for continuing customer remediation-related costs and an increase in Canterbury earthquake cost estimates, as it received more claims than expected from the Natural Hazards Commission. It had large event claims of $3m from the Dunedin floods in October last year, and expected that it would be paying out around $4m for claims from Cyclone Tam, which would be included in the second half report. Tower had $50m set aside for major event claims for the full year.
RNZ News
13-05-2025
- RNZ News
As insurance gets harder to buy, NZ has 3 choices for disaster recovery – and we keep choosing the worst one
By Ilan Noy and Belinda Storey of Scenes on Surrey Street, South Dunedin, Friday evening. Photo: RNZ / Nathan Mckinnon Analysis -The number of climate change-related extreme weather events is on the rise, making it harder for many people to buy affordable home insurance. The industry has already signalled it is pulling out of some places in Aotearoa New Zealand, leaving the government and homeowners to question what happens next. This is not something that should be ignored, or met with ad-hoc, unplanned responses. Since insurance is required for residential mortgages, the retreat of insurance companies will have significant consequences for property prices and local economies. With the retreat of insurance companies a future certainty in some communities, the government must decide how to respond. In our new research), we developed the "trilemma" framework, outlining the policy trade-offs governments face in adapting to climate change. We found effective adaptation policy needs to achieve three goals: But any policy can satisfy only two of these three goals. The government has to make trade-offs. When it comes to responding to the retreat of private insurance, the options include: Each one of these options involves giving up on at least one of the three policy goals. Let us consider "Macondo", a hypothetical community in a flood-prone area where insurance has "retreated". Do nothing The "do nothing" option is when the government does not take a policy position on flood or storm insurance. This option has little to no cost for the government and, as long as people don't expect buyouts, would incentivise risk reduction. But it leaves homeowners completely exposed to the increasing risk. In "Macondo", some homeowners will have reduced the risk for their own properties (raising their houses, for example). Others won't be able to do so and remain completely at the mercy of the elements. Destruction of homes and vehicles in the Esk Valley. Photo: Tom Kitchin Those whose houses have been deemed uninsurable would have their mortgages automatically put into default. Some may have to sell their home at a much lower price and may remain indebted even after the sale. Local councils might offer to invest in defences for the community by building stopbanks, but that is less likely for poorer and smaller local councils. When an extreme weather event does happen, causing significant losses, the uninsured who own their homes may be unable to repair or rebuild and will be left destitute. Public replacement insurance In 1945, New Zealand's government introduced public insurance for some natural hazards with the Earthquake and War Damage Commission. This later became the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and more recently, the Natural Hazards Commission (NHC). The commission was established as private insurers withdrew earthquake cover in the 1940s and landslip cover in the 1980s. The government could choose to extend NHC policies to fully cover weather events such as floods and storms (NHC now provides only partial cover for damage to land from these hazards). Or it could establish a different public insurance scheme to cover these hazards. When designed well, this option makes fiscal sense. For example, after 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes EQC cover for residential properties didn't carry extra costs for the government. Public replacement insurance could also make recovery fairer for everyone. But providing a blanket safety net through a public insurance scheme would discourage risk reduction. With the greater sense of financial safety may come a higher appetite to build on more risky sites, and spend less to defend existing homes. This would result in even more exposure and more damage. Publicly-funded defences and buyouts Successive governments across a range of disasters have opted for the ad-hoc approach. This inevitably turns out to be a combination of publicly-funded defences with generously provisioned buyouts. This combination of defences and buyouts may be the most politically appealing in the short term, but it is also the least affordable and the least efficient option. This option leads to reduced risk (especially if buyouts are used) and can lessen hardship and even inequities. This policy was used in Westport after its damaging floods in 2021 and 2022. Similarly, the Auckland Anniversary Flood and Cyclone Gabrielle triggered large investments in buyouts and in new flood defences that will end up costing billions. Unfortunately for the affected residents in both cases, the process was not done preemptively following a carefully designed process. Instead, the response to each event was designed on the fly, was lengthy, and full of frustrating uncertainties, missteps, and missed opportunities. Currently, every successive government in New Zealand chooses to do nothing and then switches to a defence and buyout choice when disaster strikes. This is the worst of all the trilemma policy options. A more proactive policy, even if well-conceived, cannot achieve all three of the goals we listed. But at least the choice between these trade-offs would be clear and transparent. It would also avoid all the inefficiencies created by the reactive policy choices our elected governments make now. Science writer Jo-Anne Hazel contributed to this analysis.
