Prop­erty mit­i­ga­tion

Whitsunday Times - - LOCAL NEWS -

THERE have been many re­ports in the me­dia re­gard­ing prop­erty mit­i­ga­tion for cy­clones, and some­one has asked me ex­actly what mit­i­ga­tion is.

In this case mit­i­ga­tion means do­ing work on a prop­erty in or­der to re­duce any dam­age that may hap­pen dur­ing a cy­clone.

The good thing about mit­i­ga­tion is that proper risk as­sess­ment has to take place in or­der to iden­tify any­thing that can be done. Cur­rently risk is as­sumed and not as­sessed!!

The bad things about mit­i­ga­tion are: the cost; and there’s no proof it has any af­fect what-so-ever on pre­mi­ums.

I be­lieve mit­i­ga­tion pro­ce­dures in the long term may only re­duce pre­mi­ums by about 10-15%.

Spend­ing $20,000+ on a new roof in or­der to save 10% on your pre­mium and to save a “pos­si­ble” claim of $50,000 for an in­sur­ance com­pany is im­pos­si­ble to sell to peo­ple.

Mit­i­ga­tion has been pushed hard by the In­sur­ance Coun­cil of Aus­tralia, Mar­garet Shaw Air­lie Beach who to­tally be­lieve this is the one and only so­lu­tion. I be­lieve the cost of mit­i­ga­tion should be met by the in­sur­ance com­pa­nies them­selves. Af­ter all it is their money we’re sup­pos­edly sav­ing and In­sur­ance com­pa­nies make enough prof­its to pay for the mit­i­ga­tion they deem re­quired.

I don’t be­lieve un­der any cir­cum­stances ei­ther the State or Fed­eral Gov­ern­ments should be asked to to­tally sub­sidise mit­i­ga­tion projects in or­der to save in­sur­ance com­pa­nies money.

Govern­ment money can be bet­ter spent else­where.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.