5. Insurer engagement and communications with policyholders
   1. The objectives of the General Insurance Code of Practice (the Code) include the promotion of better, more informed relations between insurers and policyholders.[1] The Code commits insurers to promoting trust, integrity and respect by being clear, transparent, fair and timely in their communications with the community, and to design and sell insurance products in a clear, transparent and fair manner.[2]
   2. During the major floods, policyholders were observed regularly misunderstanding their policies and what they were covered for.[3] Stakeholders argued that insurance policies were too complex and difficult to understand, containing an array of inclusions and exclusions. Further challenging consumer understanding were the differences in insurers’ definitions and interpretations of key policy terms, particularly terms related to the types of flood coverage (for example, rainwater run-off) as well as exclusions (for example, what constitutes wear and tear).
   3. As well as issues with consumer understanding of insurance policies, consumer advocacy groups and policyholders told the Committee about difficulties receiving meaningful and timely updates on claim progress, vague and conflicting clean-up instructions in the immediate aftermath of the floods, as well as an array of other communication issues that had the effect of further increasing policyholder distress and confusion.
   4. This chapter discusses and makes recommendations to improve insurers’ engagement with policyholders at sign-on and renewal, as well as insurers’ communications with policyholders before, during and following the major floods.

Consumer understanding of insurance policies at sign-on and renewal

5.5Improving consumer understanding of the policy they are taking out has been a decades-long challenge for the insurance industry, exacerbated by the complexity and significant variations between policies.

5.6The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 requires insurers to clearly inform the insured in writing whether the contract provides insurance cover in respect of flood damage.[4] Insurers fulfill this requirement through the provision of a Product Disclosure Statement (PDS).[5] PDSs are typically complex and long, often running over 100 pages.[6]

5.7Recent research conducted by CHOICE found that only 46 per cent of people read the PDS for their policy, and given the complexity of such documents, it is likely even less understand them.[7] In reality, policyholders make assumptions about the extent of their coverage at sign-on and rarely engage with their PDS outside of claims time.[8] The risks of ineffective disclosure include inadvertent underinsurance, a lack of understanding of the insurance product purchased, and the purchase of insurance cover which does not serve the consumer’s intended purpose.[9]

5.8The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) found that insurers typically complied with the necessary disclosure obligations, both at sign-on and policy renewal.[10] However, AFCA also told the Committee that the variations between policies made it difficult for consumers to draw effective comparisons when considering taking out a policy.[11]

5.9Insurers’ policies vary considerably, with variations in the terms used to describe an event, such as rainwater runoff and storm surge, as well as provisions for temporary accommodation, treatment of mould, cash settlements, and exclusion clauses, such as ‘lack of maintenance’ and ‘wear and tear’.[12]

5.10Australian insurance policies have included a standard definition of ‘flood’ since regulatory changes in 2012 following the 2010-11 Queensland floods.[13] The Committee received evidence that this has reduced the number of disputes.[14] However, there is no legislated or consistent definition adopted by insurers for the other events that cause water damage to property. When the Committee asked how insurance firms differentiate between flood and other events, one insurer wrote:

Many of our policies do not explicitly define rainwater run-off – in these cases, rainwater run-off is implicitly included in the more general “storm” definition… The coverage of policies with respect to flood damage varies with each policy depending on brand, location, product, and customer choices.[15]

5.11Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre and Westjustice highlighted the confusion that the lack of standardisation of terms and definitions causes:

Comprehending these differences and applying them to one’s own risk profile… is an almost impossible task even in the most ideal of circumstances. The flaws baked into the design and supply of…insurance contracts led to very real impacts upon Australians when faced with the need to rely on them – like during the 2022 floods…The general insurance market is a ‘confusopoly’. Home and contents insurance consumers are faced with an almost soul crushing amount of information and choice in deciding which product to purchase to cover their risks…This reduces market transparency and leads many consumers to be unable to make a genuinely informed comparison and choice.[16]

5.12Advance Cairns told the Committee:

If someone's looking to insure, being able to compare apples with apples and make an assessment, rather than having to understand the intricacies of exclusions, would make that process a lot easier… many discovered that they

weren't covered for flood. They thought they were; it never occurred to them they weren't.[17]

5.13Misunderstanding of policy terms including flood, storm and rainwater runoff led to underinsurance for many policyholders, and consequently financial hardship, confusion and frustration upon receiving the outcome of a claim.[18] One of the most common examples raised was in relation to Insurance Australia Group’s (IAG) changes to the policies offered under NRMA. NRMA had begun bundling optout flood cover with rainwater runoff and storm surge prior to the 2022 major floods. Many NRMA customers were not aware of this change in their policy or did not understand what the different types of water damage meant until they had to lodge a claim.[19] AFCA told the Committee that even among industry experts, there is a lack of agreement on how certain policy clauses should be interpreted.[20]

5.14GenWest told the Committee about a policyholder who believed they were covered for flood only to discover upon submitting the claim that they were not:

…when the flood hit, she said: 'We're okay, we're good, we're lucky. We've got insurance. We'll be fine.' But then, when she contacted the insurance company to make a claim, she found out that they don't have flood cover. That's when they broke down and realised that everything was gone. They didn't know; they had no idea—whilst living on a flood plain.[21]

5.15The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) observed in their 2023 review on home insurance claims that policy inclusions and exclusions were rarely known or completely understood, with some consumers assuming that flood was always covered.[22] They also found that consumers were unaware that their property required maintenance and what the obligation to reasonably maintain a property entailed, such as the reasonable maintenance of roofs and gutters.[23]

5.16Consumer advocacy groups noted that there was almost no understanding amongst consumers regarding their obligations to maintain their home or how much ‘wear and tear’ justifies the denial of a claim.[24]

5.17The actions policyholders need to undertake to ensure their claim is not denied based on a lack of maintenance exclusion is unclear. Consumer advocacy groups told the Committee that insurance staff themselves had a limited understanding of when lack of maintenance and wear and tear clauses would apply in their own policies, leading to the clauses being inconsistently applied, including within the same insurer.[25] Examples include claim denials for water damage incurred from overflowing gutters based on pre-existing gutter damage, even where gutters had been replaced within a few years of the event and owners could prove gutters had been regularly and professionally maintained.

5.18Caxton Legal Centre told the Committee that the lack of clarity around common exclusions and what is required for policyholders to remain covered by their policies was confusing for policyholders, especially for those whose claim had been denied following the major floods:

Our clients were unaware that there were problems with maintenance at their home before they made a claim in this event. Some clients had done repair work on their home recently, and could not understand how the home was now considered to be not well maintained. There was a real gap between how clients expected their insur[ers] to respond and how they actually responded.[26]

5.19Caxton Legal Centre also told the Committee that insurers need to improve their communication strategies so people understand their obligations:

I think the insurers could get quite creative about the information they give people and the expectations they set of people. I don't think most of us know what good maintenance on our homes is. I think there's a big gap there, and then there's of course a very big gap for older people and people with vulnerabilities… I don't know if it's creative ads or campaigns or exactly what it is, but, if they have certain expectations that we're up on our roofs once a year or whatever it happens to be, that needs to be communicated in an effective way that's consumer tested.[27]

5.20The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) reported to the Committee at a public hearing that it was engaged in a review of clauses for wear and tear and maintenance, and would seek the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) authorisation to standardise definitions across insurers:

Once we've got a standardised clause that the consumer can understand, that our stakeholders, our consumer groups accept and the like, it enables us to go forward on a scalable mass campaign to talk to people about maintenance of their homes.[28]

5.21However, other evidence highlighted challenges ensuring full consumer understanding of terms and conditions, even where insurers do communicate upfront.[29] IAG argued that ever-increasing product disclosure requirements over decades had increased the complexity of information presented to policyholders, potentially contributing to poor consumer understanding of the bundling of flood, stormwater and rainwater opt-outs by NRMA (as described above).[30]

5.22Youi warned that in its experience, it is not possible to guarantee full customer understanding of opt-outs, regardless of the insurer’s clarity of communication at the point of purchase:

...what we found is that it almost doesn't matter how good the conversation with the customer was up front; sometimes there's not a great understanding that you've opted out of flood cover... From our point of view ... we can clearly understand through the voice recordings that the customer opted out of flood cover. A flood event happens. The customer is extremely disappointed that they didn't have flood cover.[31]

Risk and other determinants of premiums

5.23The underpinnings of the pricing of insurance premiums is also a point of confusion for consumers. In its joint submission, Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre and Westjustice told the Committee that insurers do not explain how they have assessed the risk of natural hazards on a property and how this impacts the pricing of the consumer’s insurance premium. These consumer advocacy groups wrote to the Committee:

…consumers are left in the dark with respect to how those risks identified impact upon the actual premium price they are charged. They are also largely not made aware of what actions they should or could take to lower these risks…Consumers must know what the risks are to be able to act on them and should be provided with appropriately transparent pricing signals – that indicate the existence of risks with price increases and the mitigation of risks with price decreases.[32]

5.24Insurers told the Committee they provide information on their websites and send consumers targeted communications with information explaining price increases, including sometimes through Product PEDs (premium, excess and discount guides).[33] Insurers also noted they encourage customers that have further concerns or questions surrounding pricing to contact a service representative directly.[34]

5.25However, insurers do not provide details to consumers about how the specific risks they are exposed to are influencing the premiums they are charged. Consumer advocacy groups argued for insurers to provide consumers with more information on the makeup of premiums, including the proportion of the premium that is attributable to perils. [35]

5.26In submissions, some insurers told the Committee they did not quantify the proportion of the price increase attributable to different factors such as upward pressure on reinsurance costs or changes in the assessment of underlying risks as it is either not possible on an individual level with costs being shared across the portfolio, or because such information is commercially sensitive.[36]

5.27As the consumer has more information about their property and contents, particularly special or unique possessions, insurers rely to some extent on consumers estimating the value of their possessions correctly when taking out insurance to ensure they are properly insured. The Code requires insurers to provide consumers with access to a calculator to estimate their sum insured when they apply for, or renew, a home building insurance product.[37] The calculators include built in estimated costs for rebuilding and repairing a property based on the risks the insurer believes a property to have, estimated rebuild costs and other factors.

5.28Consumer advocacy groups suggested the sum insured calculators may not necessarily incorporate the most up to date information regarding inflation, updated building code requirements, or increases in labour and material costs, leading to underinsurance in some cases.[38]

5.29In the Independent Review of the General Insurance Code of Practice (the Code Review), the panel noted that it had received a number of submissions in relation to sum insured calculators.[39] In particular, the panel noted the ACCC’s Northern Australia Insurance Inquiry Final Report which found that the results from building sum insured calculators varied significantly across insurers, which could confuse consumers.[40] The General Insurance Code Governance Committee (CGC) proposed that insurers be required to use an up to date calculator for home and building policies, and that insurers should proactively warn customers if they appear to be underinsured.[41] Legal Aid Queensland also supported insurers being required to warn consumers of potential underinsurance.[42] This is reflected in recommendation 25.

5.30Consumers were also sometimes unaware that the sum insured amount represents the costs to replace or rebuild their home, and not the actual purchase price of their property.[43] The reality is that consumers are mostly guessing what they believe their sum insured amount should be.[44] Some insurers observed a trend of policyholders reducing their sum insured amount compared to previous years to manage increased premium payments.[45]

5.31The Financial Rights Legal Centre raised concerns that insurers are putting too much of the responsibility for estimating the total costs to rebuild on consumers, and not providing consumers with enough information for the consumer to estimate the coverage they need so they are not underinsured.[46] The Financial Legal Rights Centre explained:

…consumers know very little about building costs… Insurers actually have access to a ton of this information. They have their finger on the pulse. That is their business model: they are constantly pricing and repricing and analysing and modelling risk and the cost of risk and the cost of rebuilding. So, in terms of the responsibility to ensure that your sum insured is accurate, why can't we, Australia-wide, shift some of that responsibility to the industry that has all the data as opposed to it resting with the individual consumer who only knows whatever anecdotal things they know, like, 'My neighbour built this the other day for this much, so maybe that's right?’.[47]

5.32Commercial insurance policies may include averaging provisions that restrict the total payout to the policyholder based on the proportion of the value covered.For example, if a company insures a building asset for less than the cost of rebuilding it (for example, $2 million out of $4 million, or 50 per cent), the insurer may pay in proportion to the amount of underinsurance (50 per cent of $2 million would equate to a $1 million payout). This incentivises businesses to regularly update rebuild cost valuations on their insured assets, but potentially exposing businesses to unexpected underinsurance, especially if it coincides with high inflation in the construction sector.

5.33The Committee heard that small and medium businesses can be left unknowingly underinsured because insurers have inadequately communicated to businesses about the averaging provisions applicable to their insurance policy.[48] Cheney Suthers Lawyers told the Committee:

We know that, when you go to an insurer, you put all of your facts in as data online, it spits out a policy and you pay your premium. That's not enough… when they make a claim, if they're not aware about their averaging provisions… They don't realise that they're going to be hit with a major penalty at the end because they're underinsured. The Act requires insurers to clearly inform customers. Where's the clear information?[49]

5.34Section 44 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 requires an insurer to ‘clearly inform’ the consumer of an averaging clause in a general insurance contract (while also specifying the clause has no effect if the sum insured was at least 80 per cent of the value of the property insured).[50]

5.35In practice, it appears averaging clauses have mostly disappeared in home and contents policies in Australia but remain in some small and medium sized business insurance products.[51]

Committee comment

5.36The challenges around improving consumer understanding of their insurance coverage and insurance policies and terms has been ongoing for decades. Insurers have to some extent improved their communications with policyholders about their policy coverage to provide simpler, easier to understand information to consumers however, the evidence suggests that insurers need to do more to ensure their customers are properly informed about their coverage and their obligations under the policy they’ve taken out.

5.37Insurers need to provide more comprehensible advice to consumers about the exclusions in their policies and expectations on policyholders to ensure an exclusion will not be applied in the event they make a claim. Insurers should be providing policyholders with general advice related to the maintenance of key aspects of a property that influence the application of an exclusion, such as the maintenance of roofs, gutters and fences. The Committee suggests necessary maintenance tasks could be communicated to policyholders through reminders sent to consumers periodically.

5.38Insurers should also provide consumers with clearer guidance in relation to the key determinants of their premium and any material changes in their premium. Currently insurers provide consumers with the total premium they would pay if the consumer were to accept the policy. This does not provide consumers with complete information about how peril-related risks may be increasing their premiums. It is becoming increasingly important for consumers to understand the risks posed by increasingly frequent and intense weather events so they can make good decisions, including taking effective mitigation measures.

5.39It is also important that consumers have a clearer understanding of the insurance coverage required for a rebuild of their home – either like-for-like or a more resilient rebuild. This will require sum insured calculators that provide more reliable and standardised results across insurers. In addition, insurers need to develop means of proactive communication with consumers in relation to the risk of underinsurance.

5.40In light of such findings, the Committee makes the following recommendations to enhance clarity for consumers and improve the claims experience from sign-on.

5.41The Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate mechanisms to require insurers to more clearly communicate the basis for the price of premiums. This could include:

• at a high level, highlighting the nature of risk for the property for each major peril type (for example, a traffic light rating system)
• last year’s premium alongside the current year’s premium, along with a descriptive analysis of why there has been a change if it is material (for example, over 10 per cent). The analysis could include highlighting different factors that may influence pricing such as changes in building costs or changes in the assessment of one or more perils, or the impact of household or community level mitigation, without attaching numerical estimates to each factor.

5.42The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require that insurers, at policy commencement and renewal, communicate key information on the consumer’s policy, including:

• A clearly highlighted plain English explanation of common obligations policyholders have under their policies and the application of certain exclusions if they are not undertaken, and
• general advice in relation to property maintenance and the expectations of the insurer regarding key aspects of the property such as roofs, gutters and fences, and
• general information around the calculation of a policyholder’s sum insured and factors a policyholder may wish to consider to ensure full coverage in a total loss event.

5.43The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require that insurers inform policyholders when they suspect the policyholder’s sum insured does not cover the full rebuild costs according to their calculations, both at sign-on and renewal. The insurer should encourage the consumer to review their sum insured amount and ask them to confirm with a response.

The Committee further recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice be strengthened to require insurers to ensure that sum insured calculators are accurate and up to date, consistent with Recommendation 56 of the Independent Review of the General Insurance Code of Practice. The calculators should include updated information on rebuild costs, including cost increases relating to rebuilding to current building standards, and increases in labour and materials costs.

5.44The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require that insurers adopt a more flexible approach in relation to rebuilds and that, in particular, a like-for-like replacement not be required and that consumers be permitted to swap out size/scope for resilience and efficiency in “sum insured” repairs and rebuilds.

5.45The Committee recommends that insurance brokers and insurers be required to provide clear guidance on the operation of averaging provisions to small and medium sized businesses.

The Australian Government should also consider prohibiting averaging provisions for small businesses.

Insurer communication and engagement with policyholders

5.46Good communication is central to a positive claims experience. Insurers generally took proactive steps to engage and provide ongoing support to policyholders after the floods, including the provision of urgent financial assistance at the beginning of the claims process and the identification of and support for vulnerable policyholders.[52] However, a key driver of policyholders’ distress during the major floods was insurers’ poor communication practices, specifically a lack of timely, meaningful and clear communications.

5.47Both ASIC’s 2023 review on home insurance claims and the Deloitte report emphasised a pressing need for insurers to improve communications to policyholders about decisions, delays, and complications.[53] The reviews found insurers were not clear, proactive or transparent in communications, often causing confusion for policyholders and misaligned expectations about next steps and timeframes.[54] For many policyholders, this led to significant mental, social and financial costs.[55] This was particularly the case for more vulnerable policyholders. The Committee has made recommendations later in the chapter that build on the recommendations of these reviews.

Insurer reach out and presence in impacted communities after the 2022 major floods

5.48Insurers advised the Committee that they contacted policyholders on how to prepare and lodge their claim following the major floods through a variety of channels, including through email, outbound telephony, paid advertising, radio, television, social media, interactive voice response messaging, SMS, and on their own websites and mobile applications.[56] Disruptions to phone reception and internet, as well as power outages, made it challenging for some policyholders to contact their insurer or lodge a claim online.[57] In this way, an on-the-ground physical presence from insurers was critical in assisting such policyholders to source temporary accommodation and access emergency payments.

5.49The ICA identified that it coordinated an on-the-ground industry presence in recovery centres in the immediate aftermath of extreme weather events once it was safe to do so.[58] Insurers’ physical presence allowed better facilitation of immediate relief operations including lodging claims, booking assessments, and discussing the claims process.[59] Many insurers provided emergency payments and sourced temporary accommodation before confirming whether the policyholder was covered for the event.[60] One insurer made over $5.3 million in ex-gratia payments to 1,492 policyholders whose claims were subsequently denied in full.[61]

5.50A physical presence in impacted communities was well received by policyholders.[62] Consumer advocacy groups observed policyholders were often able to better navigate the initial stages of recovery when guided by an in-person representative than over the phone.[63] Face-to-face assistance was particularly beneficial for policyholders who found navigating insurers’ website challenging,[64] as Dr Prue Bagley, Community Engagement Officer at ARC Justice told the Committee:

We've had people come into the recovery centre who've been sent a text message that invites them if they've got a question about their claim to access it online: 'Track your claim online.' There's a sizable chunk of the population who don't know how to do that. And there are also people who, following a traumatic event, don't want to track their claim online; they want to talk to [their insurer] about their claim.[65]

5.51However, some communities told the Committee that emergency hubs were not set up in their towns, with people having to travel to larger centres, while some insurers weren’t represented at people’s nearest emergency hub or did not have a presence until weeks after the hub was established.[66] Councillor Steve Pickering of Clarence Valley Council, observed:

I personally attended the hubs maybe three times. I did not ever see a representative of any insurance company at any of the hubs. There were representatives from state governments. There were charities. There was the Red Cross. There were church organisations… We had the Army. We had the SES. We had the RFS. There was not one insurance person.[67]

5.52Mrs Elizabeth Richardson, General Manager at the Hawkesbury City Council also told the Committee that recovery hubs were predominantly filled with disaster relief organisations rather than insurers:

…there may have been some one-off appearances by some of the insurers, but predominantly the recovery hubs that were set up—both at Wisemens Ferry and South Windsor—had presence from the council, New South Wales government agencies and a suite of not-for-profit organisations offering relief and assistance to the community rather than the insurers having a presence, as such.[68]

5.53Mr Kevin Beatty, Mayor of Cabonne Council further told the Committee:

Having this support on the ground is vital. It took over a week to re-establish the Telstra phone service in Eugowra. Eugowra residents had no access to phones to ring [insurers] and discuss their insurance.... Their presence at a station like that would have been crucial to getting that information back to them. It wasn't there and it added to the trauma…[69]

Information provided to policyholders about post-flood cleanup

5.54Guidance across insurers was unclear regarding when flooded property could be accessed and damaged contents and materials removed without impacts to insurance claims.[70] Whilst some policyholders were advised they could photograph the damaged items and then dispose of them, others were advised to not clean-up until an assessor had attended the property.[71] Mr Loane, General Manager at Forbes Shire Council, said there was an absence of post-flood instructions altogether:

The insurance companies neglected to tell a lot of the folk to document and photograph the stuff they had to take out of the houses. Then they'd have a fight with them afterwards to make people justify that what they actually had to dispose of was real. People were feeling like criminals and saying, 'They don't believe us…’[72]

5.55Inconsistent communication across insurers regarding clean-up advice caused stress and confusion among policyholders, particularly when the advice was shared with neighbours and friends that had received conflicting advice.[73] Prolonged delays in removing waste from homes led to mould growth, posing serious health risks and slowing the recovery journey.[70] In some cases, these mould issues were not covered by insurers.[74] Mr Tony Carusi, President of the Northern Rivers Flood Action Group told the Committee:

Unfortunately, we're in a situation where a big percentage of people do not trust insurance companies… the questions were: 'Can we start to clean? Can we remove stuff from the house?' What they were told over the… phones was: 'Oh, I'm not sure,' or, 'I don't know,' or, 'Maybe you can; you'd better take photos.' There was no clear, consistent message being given to the people who were… traumatised, stressed and had nowhere to live… Having somebody on the phone not being able to give you a clear message… Eventually, some people just locked the door and said, 'I'm not going to touch anything.'[75]

5.56Legal advocacy organisations and local councils observed large volumes of debris being left outside flood damaged homes with residents hesitant to organise or allow removal until an insurance assessor had inspected their property.[76] This caused logistical inefficiencies for local councils.[77] Ms Heidi Turner, Coordinator of Disaster and Emergency Management explained the ramifications that delayed clean-ups had for the City of Gold Coast:

…we had to go back to the same addresses time and time again because people weren't ready to relinquish their goods. With the 2022 events, the City made contact with Insurance Council Australia because we were seeking information about what residents could safely do and have a guarantee… that the insurance company would still insure their assets if they had got rid of them prior to them coming out to do assessments. Having access to that information is critical.[78]

5.57Ballina Shire Council noted that overall costs for disaster recovery clean-up could be minimised if policyholders were informed they could take photographs and remove debris and other waste immediately, preventing local councils from having to do multiple trips to the same street and thereby increasing costs.[79] As it was difficult for policyholders to contact their insurer in the immediate aftermath of the floods due to the influx of inquiries and internet access and phone reception issues,[80] Mayor Raven of Logan City Council suggested the need for communications to be more proactive from the insurance industry:

We need an education piece that says, 'This is what you can expect in a crisis, and this is what you can put out and what the insurance company will allow you to do,' because when everyone's trying to contact their insurer at the same time because there's a widespread flood event, it's very difficult to get through. Then you start getting rumours, and people stop putting out their materials because their neighbour has said, 'My insurer won't cover it and yours probably won't either.' Then you get this cascading effect, where no-one's wanting to clean up just in case. That early education piece should be provided by the industry…[81]

5.58The Deloitte report recognised the need for standardised guidance across all insurers and levels of government on clean-up processes and debris removal post flood.[82] The ICA has expressed support for improved coordination.[83]

Lack of timely communications about claim status

5.59Although the Code notes that insurers are to be fair and timely in their communications with the community,[84] insurers’ communication practices during the major floods all too often did not meet community expectations and left many policyholders feeling neglected, overwhelmed, and frustrated.[85]

5.60Advocacy groups noted their clients repeatedly contacted their insurer and left messages, only for them to be unactioned and unacknowledged by their insurer for weeks and in some cases months.[86] Insurers would often inform policyholders they would call back within a set timeframe which frequently did not eventuate, acting to erode policyholder trust.[87]

On day 3 we borrowed a car, drove to Byron and put in our claim with NRMA. We thought the worst was over; we were in the system. In fact, there was little that was systematic about the process to come, with the worst aspect being the difficulties communicating with the insurer and, later, the builder…the silence was just deafening.[88]

5.61Some policyholders also spoke about needing to re-explain their situation to their insurer with each contact:

Every time I phone and hang on the phone for an hour, I have to tell them exactly what's been going on before or ask them to read the emails I've sent. I've never had a reply to an email, text or phone call where I haven't rung up… I feel like I'm project-managing the insurance company because I can't speak to anybody or get a response from anybody.[89]

5.62Policyholders that experienced communication delays with their insurer described the toll this took on them:

50 days and no phone call…You don't sleep. You don't eat properly. It affects your relationship. It affects your kids. It affects everything.[90]

5.63The General Insurance Code of Practice (the Code) currently includes a number of provisions that set out time requirements in relation to communication. These include:

• Clause 68: if the policyholder makes a claim and the insurer requires more information, the insurer will, within 10 business days, either request further information, appoint a loss assessor or adjustor, or provide an estimate of the likely timeframe for a decision.
• Clause 70: once a claim is lodged and the process of obtaining further information and making an assessment is underway, the insurer will provide an update every 20 business days.
• Clause 71: the insurer will respond to routine inquiries within 10 business days.
• Clause 72: if a loss assessor or adjustor is appointed, then the insurer will notify the insured of this within 5 business days and inform the insured what the role of that person is.
• Clause 76: once the insurer has all required information, they will make a decision to accept or deny the claim within 10 business days and inform the insured of that decision.
• Clause 77: the decision in Clause 76 will be made within 4 months of receiving the claim, unless one of the exceptions in Clause 78 applies.[91]
  64. There are a number of issues with these timing requirements. First, they are complex and overlapping. Second, in large natural disasters they are breached many times, without any real consequence. Finally, compliance with some of the requirements may not be to the consumer’s advantage. For example, a requirement of an update every 20 days may not be useful if it does not contain meaningful information.
  65. However, it is also important that the Code contains clear timeframes. They are a key protection for consumers. The pragmatic approach would see insurers’ communications be as timely and meaningful as possible throughout the claims journey. Even during the resourcing constraints of a large natural disaster, insurers should attain capacity to respond to consumer inquiries quickly, and additionally, in a way which is helpful and understandable for consumers.
  66. Insurers acknowledged there were significant failures in internal staff resourcing which impacted insurers’ ability to administer timely communications.[92]As discussed in Chapter 2, Jobs and Skills Australia noted that during 2022, businesses across Australia struggled to hire in a historically tight labour market.[93] Vacancies were at a historic high relative to the number of employed Australians.[94] The Deloitte report found that the market for call or contact centre workers was constrained, with total vacancies ranked in the 9th percentile of all occupations in February 2022.[95] This indicates there was strong competition for claims handling staff over this period.[96]
  67. The ratio of total full time equivalent staff members to claims varied across insurers during the major floods, from 1:197 being the lowest ratio to 1:888 being the highest.[97] ASIC sought an update on the steps insurers had taken to uplift resourcing in June 2023 and found an overall increase in the resourcing of claims handling, with some insurers increasing resources significantly more than others.[98] Some insurers also appeared to rely more heavily on temporary staff compared with other insurers.[99]The table below shows ASIC’s data on insurers’ resourcing since 2019 in terms of permanent and temporary claims handling FTE (Full Time Equivalent) staff numbers.[100]

Source: ASIC, Submission 35, p. 22.

5.68Although insurers increased staff recruitment in response to the influx of major flood claims, AFCA found that even where insurers had increased their resources, there was a delay until new staff had reached full competency.[101] In its report, Deloitte found that the combination of a less experienced workforce and relaxed training standards impacted the quality of insurers’ communications practices and claims management.[102]

5.69Mrs Prue Monument, speaking on behalf of the General Insurance Code Governance Committee (CGC) told the Committee:

What was clear with the increased breaches was that insurers didn't have the resourcing levels that they required. Increasing catastrophes are not a surprise. This is something that has been talked about and known about for quite some time, and insurers are in the business of responding to catastrophes. We saw that their resourcing levels were such that they just weren't able to pivot and respond when they needed to.[103]

5.70AFCA noted that:

While some delays are inevitable when there is pressure on scarce supplies and labour, maintaining consistent and informative communication with customers helps the customer recover earlier from often traumatic events. It also reduces the risk of complaints and helps with earlier resolution of complaints when they do occur.[104]

5.71Both AFCA and ASIC called on insurers to increase the number of permanent staff.[105] ASIC specifically urged insurers to prepare for disasters proactively rather than scaling-up resources once one has occurred.[106] The Deloitte report also recommended insurers redesign their resourcing capability for catastrophe events;[107] the ICA accepted this recommendation in principle, and has noted their commitment to commission an independent review of implementation progress by insurers in the second half of 2024.[108]

5.72The ICA noted that insurers will need to carefully consider how the costs of future investments in operational response processes will impact on premiums.[109] For example, although Auto & General Insurance Company Limited (A&G) increased its resourcing from 146 FTE claims handling staff in January 2022 to 296 FTE in June 2023, the insurer also noted in their submission:

Looking forward to ways to best prepare for potential similar events in the future… Operationally, it would be impractical to have staff on standby for major catastrophe events. This would increase costs and reduce affordability for A&G’s customers.[110]

5.73Similarly Royal Automobile Club of Queensland Limited (RACQ) noted:

RACQ recognises the importance of being adequately resourced to respond to weather events and… maintains partnerships with labour hire firms to quickly employ additional support when required – a delicate balance between retaining adequate resourcing and managing premiums by not being over resourced.[111]

Meaningful updates and automated communications

5.74Meaningful updates regarding claim progress are important for the policyholder in planning ahead and navigating natural disaster recovery.[112] The Code requires insurers to respond to policyholders’ routine enquiries about their claim’s progress within 10 business days and inform policyholders about the progress of their claim at least every 20 business days.[113] The CGC reported sharp increases in violations of these Code provisions during the time of the major floods.[114]

5.75There were 5,578 breaches of the obligation to respond to routine enquiries about a claim’s progress within 10 business days in 2021-22, a 47 per cent increase on the preceding year.[115] In 2022-23, there were 28,189 breaches of the obligation to tell a customer about the progress of a claim at least every 20 business days, a 60 per cent increase on the preceding year and almost 5 times higher than the amount of breaches in 2019-2020.[116] ASIC’s review on home insurance found that 55 per cent of breaches they examined were attributed to insurers breaching the requirement to update policyholders every 20 business days on the progress of their claim.[117]

5.76Due to the volume of major flood claims, insurers’ manual processes did not cope with demand as claim numbers rose and resources came under pressure.[118] With recruiting difficult in the economic context of the major floods, some submitters identified that automated communications were relied on to meet the timeframes set out in the Code.[119]

5.77Insurers also automated various administrative tasks and processes that were previously manually handled, including email correspondence with policyholders, workflow task generation, and initial lodgement advice.[120] RACQ explained how they used automation to support ongoing communication with policyholders and meet their obligations:

Given the scale of the event, RACQ fell short of policyholders’ expectations in terms of communication early in the event and did not meet GICOP obligations at a point in time. To remedy this and support ongoing communication, we developed automated updates that were specific to each claim for the 2022 flood event, providing email and SMS updates directly to policyholders on the progress of their claim.[121]

5.78Although automated communications reduced dependency on surge workforce arrangements and enabled timely updates, communicating in this way sometimes meant policyholders were not receiving meaningful updates on the progress of their claim. ARC Justice observed that automated updates in many cases were not tailored enough to be helpful and that this further increased consumer frustration.[122] The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby also submitted:

The current requirement in the Code for insurers to communicate every 20 business days often falls short of providing real value to consumers, particularly when advocates report insurers issuing automated standard templates with no substantial updates, leading to a mere box-ticking exercise. This approach can increase consumer anxiety rather than alleviate it.[123]

5.79Mrs Prue Monument, representing the CGC, agreed at a public hearing that automated updates which did not provide useful information to the policyholder about their claim’s progress, would not be in the ‘spirit’ of the Code, and that the CGC would engage with insurers if a black-letter law approach came to their attention.[124] Mr Justin Understeiner, Chief Operating Officer at AFCA also spoke in support of better automation, noting it should be leveraged to support the delivery of tailored and effective communications to policyholders:

Thinking about the future, there should be a greater investment by insurers into emerging technology that can supplement manual intervention to keep policyholders informed about what's going on. Complaints, delays and poor communication are the low-hanging fruit that insurers must address urgently.[125]

5.80Several insurers told the Committee they have made investments in digital platforms which allow policyholders to self-access tracking information on their claim, thereby providing increased transparency on their claim’s progress.[126] This is expected to empower policyholders to access information at a time convenient for them, as well as freeing up staff capacity. The Deloitte report recommended that all insurers consider an app or portal for policyholders to self-serve information on claim progress, the time until the next update and key contact details.[127] Most insurers noted they are actively developing capability and further investing in technology and automation to enhance communication practices that are both timely and effective.[128]

Need for dedicated claims managers

5.81ASIC’s review found that policyholders’ who had one dedicated claims manager maintaining direct contact on the progress of their claim tended to have a far better claims experience.[129]

5.82Insurers advised that claims are generally allocated to dedicated claims managers or a small claims team.[130] They also advised they had comprehensive systems for managing claim information that enabled any staff member to understand where a claim is up to and access a record of previous communications and documentation to avoid policyholders having to retell their story.[131]

5.83However, the Committee heard from consumer advocacy groups and a number of policyholders that some claims did not appear to have an assigned case manager, or that frequent staff movement in the claims handling area introduced discontinuity into the management of the claim.[132] Ms Sharon Keith, Program Manager at Disaster Legal Help Victoria observed:

They are often given a different person to speak to each time if the matter hasn't been escalated to a case management process. That means they're required to tell their story over and over again.[133]

5.84Policyholder, Royden Webb, also shared his case management experience:

Whilst we were allocated a claims manager fairly early, we never actually spoke to her. Contact was via email, or someone else would take our calls. We decided we were being managed by a robot.[134]

5.85Policyholders’ experiences also suggest case notes were not always well-recorded. Ms Karen Rollinson, Service Navigator at Encircle Community Services told the Committee:

One thing a couple of my clients have said is they're dealing with different people all the time. The turnover of staff - one client said three months, five months, 18 months and another three months - is ongoing. They're telling their story every time that happens and having to go back over their dispute. That just retraumatises them. Having to repeat it all the time with a different person has been really stressful and time wasting.

5.86Ms Madeleine Serle, President of the Maribyrnong Community Recovery Association, also recognised this issue:

You need to have either the same person fairly consistently or a better file management system so that what you say does not have to be repeated… Eventually people get exhausted, and they wonder off and go, 'Okay, I'll settle; enough’.[135]

5.87Consumer advocacy groups raised similar concerns about the consistency of good record-keeping practices by claims teams and emphasised the importance of diligent record-keeping in facilitating a more streamlined and positive claims experience, particularly when the allocated claims manager is on leave or unavailable.[136] ASIC’s review reiterated that good record-keeping is critical in preventing policyholder frustration from having to re-tell their story.[137]

Management of claims with multiple touchpoints

5.88There is no single definition of a ‘complex’ claim however, insurers told the Committee there are several factors that may cause an insurer to treat a claim as complex.[138] For example, the number of third parties (for example, tradespeople) involved in the rebuild or repair of property, the quantum of a claim being greater than $100,000, where indicators of vulnerability are present, or where a disputed claim has been left unresolved for a long period of time.[139]

5.89When a claim was considered complex, all insurers advised their practice was to refer the case to specialised internal teams or case managers to progress the claim and provide closer management and oversight.[140] Most insurers responded to questions from the Committee that they did not have data on the amount of cases regarded as complex within their firm.[141]

5.90The involvement of third parties such as assessors, builders and tradespersons during the claims process complicated communications and in many cases was challenging for insurers to monitor. However, managing third parties effectively is a core element of an insurer’s responsibility. This forms part of insurers’ overall licencing conditions, reflected in clause 86 of the Code:

If we have selected and directly authorised a repairer to repair your damaged property, then we will accept responsibility for the quality of their work and the materials they use.[142]

5.91 Policyholders were often left uninformed regarding when third parties would be attending their property and for what purpose.[143] Occasionally, third parties would arrive late or not attend the property at all, with no warning or explanation provided.[144] The Financial Rights Legal Centre noted a case where a policyholder returned to their home and found an assessor attending without their knowledge or permission.[145] Conversely, another policyholder told the Committee:

We were there every time they said they'd come, but they didn't turn up. The builder bullied us; he wouldn't answer the phone.[146]

5.92Insurers sometimes asked third parties to communicate with policyholders about the progress and outcome of their claim, often resulting in mixed messages and confusion.[147] The CGC noted that where insurers delegate communication with policyholders to third parties, such as builders, proper oversight is crucial.[148]

5.93The Committee also heard that when third party assessors attended the policyholder’s property, some assessors would convey their views to policyholders on the likely outcome of their claim. When insurers’ decisions did not line up with the assessor’s assumptions and claims were denied or only partially accepted, this would result in policyholders feeling confused, shocked and disappointment.[149] Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer at the Financial Legal Rights Centre observed:

…we see instances all the time where assessors will come to the house and say really conflicting things, things that are basically completely opposite to what the insurer has said - sometimes in a good way, sometimes bad. Sometimes an assessor will come to someone's house and say: 'The insurer will definitely pay this claim. You can expect at least $50,000.' And then the insurer will say, 'No, we're denying the claim.' That kind of whiplash is really upsetting, obviously, but it also is confusing.[150]

5.94AFCA and consumer advocacy groups observed insurers denying claims on the basis of recommendations made within expert reports (see Chapters 4 and 6).[151] While the CGC noted that external experts bring specialised knowledge to claim assessments and such opinions on the causes of loss or damage can be vital, they also emphasised that expertise in assessing loss or damage does not necessarily transfer to expertise in an insurer’s policy terms and conditions.[152] With most insurers currently allowing external experts to make recommendations on the acceptance or denial of a claim, the CGC wrote in their report on the oversight of external experts:

When external experts provide recommendations to accept or deny claims, there is a risk that insurers rely on the recommendations for decisions rather than carefully considering the assessment and findings on the cause of the loss or damage. This can lead to unfair or inconsistent decisions on claims. Insurers can eliminate this risk by not allowing external experts to make recommendations to accept or deny claims.[153]

5.95The ASIC review, Deloitte report, and the CGC’s report found crucial gaps in the monitoring and oversight of third parties.[154] Some insurers have since committed to improving their monitoring of third parties to provide more accurate information and updates to policyholders, by investing in greater governance tools that allow the policyholder to track and monitor the scheduling of trades.[155]

5.96Consumer advocacy groups advocated for policyholders to be copied into insurers’ correspondence with third parties. However, insurers rebuffed the notion, advising the volume, technicality and complexity of the correspondence would likely cause further confusion for policyholders rather than addressing communication issues or enhancing the claims experience.[156]

Management of vulnerable policyholders

5.97Vulnerable policyholders often require additional support to ensure a positive claims experience. Clause 92 of the Code requires insurers to consider several factors to determine whether a person may be ‘vulnerable’, such as age, disability, mental health conditions, physical health conditions, family violence, language barriers, literacy barriers, cultural background, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, living in a remote location or experiencing financial distress.[157]

5.98The ICA told the Committee:

Everyone after an event is vulnerable. Probably one of the challenges the insurance sector has is when you have an event with a lot of large losses we assume everyone will be vulnerable. You then have the added complexities around age, disability, medical records or medical issues that aren't probably captured in an insurer's system at the outset when someone takes out a policy but relies on other indicators to come forward through the assessment process.[158]

5.99The Deloitte report found that identification and management of vulnerable policyholders was challenging for insurers following a natural disaster event given most impacted individuals would be experiencing some level of vulnerability.[146] AFCA noted that for some policyholders, the major floods compounded existing states of vulnerability and impairment.[147]

5.100Although most people are vulnerable to at least a degree following a major natural disaster, the rationale for having processes to identify people most at risk is to provide individualised and targeted assistance. Insurers estimated between 1 and 3 per cent of policyholders that made claims relating to the major floods were vulnerable.[145] While assisting vulnerable customers necessarily involves a degree of triaging, the very low percentage of customers identified as vulnerable following the major floods raises questions as to whether the insurers’ systems are sufficiently thorough. This is particularly the case for communities with high proportions of elderly people and people from a culturally and linguistically diverse background.

5.101Some stakeholders believed the criteria by insurers to identify vulnerable customers should be broadened,[159] for example, the CGC supported strengthening the Code to recognise vulnerability as arising not just from personal characteristics, but also from temporary or permanent circumstances that place a person at risk of detriment.[160] The insurers argued that broadening the criteria to capture more policyholders, including those experiencing situational vulnerability post-disaster, would likely stretch the resources available to adequately support the most vulnerable policyholders.[161]

5.102In its review, ASIC found that insurers must recognise consumers experiencing vulnerability and tailor their services to consumers who are experiencing vulnerability and treat them accordingly.[162] Some insurers had better systems in place to identify vulnerable customers than others. All insurers train front line staff to identify cues during customer interaction that may be indicative of a customer experiencing vulnerability.[163]

5.103Other methods to identify vulnerability included the encouragement of policyholders to self-identify over the phone through interactive voice response technology and the embedding of questions regarding vulnerability in the claim lodgement process.[164] Some insurers utilised flagging systems which worked to remind staff that the flagged policyholder may require additional support and monitoring throughout the claims process.[165]

5.104Insurers expressed mixed views on the most appropriate or accurate way for the industry to identify a policyholder as vulnerable.[166] Whilst Youi considered it appropriate for policyholders to self-identify to the insurer,[167] Allianz noted many consumers do not view themselves as vulnerable or do not wish to be viewed as vulnerable.[168] Some insurers were against suggestions to ask policyholders to self-identify their vulnerability at the time of sign-on and renewal as vulnerability may change over time,[169] or because doing so may create a risk of prejudicial outcomes for those customers at the time of underwriting.[170]

5.105At least one insurer told the Committee they complied with the International Standard ISO 22458 2022-04 on consumer vulnerability to define and identify vulnerable customers.[171] The International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) document on consumer vulnerability provides guidance for organisations on how to provide an inclusive service at all stages of service delivery, helping them to identify and support vulnerable consumers and minimising the risk they will experience harm.[172] In consideration of the ISO standard, Hollard defined vulnerability as:

…the state in which an individual can be placed at risk of harm during their interaction with a service provider due to the presence of personal, situational and market environment factors.[173]

5.106Where a policyholder was identified as vulnerable, most insurers had dedicated teams to provide more specialised assistance and refer them to internal and external support services, such as counselling services.[174] Some insurers provided hardship support for financial difficulty,[175] fast tracked claim assessments,[176] and made proactive welfare checks for policyholders they knew had lived in evacuated areas.[177] Insurers had invested in frameworks to support vulnerable policyholders, however the execution of these frameworks, due to the volume of claims and lack of training of new staff, meant the policyholder experience lacked consistency.

5.107Consumer advocacy groups stressed the need for insurance company staff, as well as third party operators, undertaking comprehensive training in trauma-informed communication.[178] These groups observed instances of insurers communicating insensitively with policyholders, without appearing to consider the trauma being experienced by their customers.

5.108Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer at the Financial Rights Legal Centre further emphasised the importance of training for insurers and contractors to adopt a trauma-informed approach to communication and claims management:

…anyone who has been through a major event like a flood is in a very vulnerable position, and anyone who is customer facing… including third-party contractors, that are going to be dealing with that person needs to have at least some base level of trauma informed training. They need to understand that someone who has been through a traumatic event is going to behave in irrational, maybe aggressive ways and that it doesn't make them a bad customer or a bad person; it means they're dealing with trauma. If you don't understand how trauma works and how it affects your decision-making and your behaviour, you are going to treat that customer in the wrong way. That is just training; it's not intuitive.[179]

5.109Despite the Code noting insurers are to use the policyholder’s preferred method of communication where possible,[180] the Committee heard that sometimes insurers were inflexible to adapting communication channels to meet vulnerable policyholder needs. Policyholders with low digital literacy can struggle to navigate the claims process given it is mostly online with a reliance on emails.[181] For other vulnerable policyholders, having to make decisions or process information over the phone was difficult.[182]

Committee comment

5.110Evidence to the Committee shows that there were many instances where insurers treated their policyholders very poorly, often characterised by a lack of compassion, and neglect. Too often, insurers failed to provide timely and useful updates to policyholders on their claim’s progress, and sometimes inadequately recorded case notes which compelled the need for policyholders to tiringly re-tell their story to different insurance staff, among other issues. There is opportunity to improve access for policyholders to view their live claim status, on their own timeframes.

5.111For policyholders whose insurers did not employ good communication practices, it often made the claims experience distressing, with evidence provided by some policyholders indicating they had become ‘claims shy’ and may hesitate to submit a similar claim with their insurer were a comparable event to happen again. There was also some suggestion that policyholders who had a poor claims experience may choose not to insure, because they did not trust they would be covered by their policy or so they would not have the burden of chasing the insurer for updates on their claim.

5.112The Committee notes that insurers were unable to provide data on some aspects of the claims experience discussed throughout this chapter. For example, most insurers did not maintain data on how many cases were identified as ‘complex’, nor did insurers collectively agree on what a ‘complex’ claim constitutes.[183]The Deloitte report and ASIC’s review both observed a lack of data harmonisation, with the Deloitte report recommending that the ICA develop a data dictionary to enhance industry-wide reporting and investigate the feasibility of extending data capture to other claim outcome measures.[184]

5.113The Committee also notes that insurers often struggled with managing multiple third parties, whether that be experts providing reports or builders and sub-contractors. Strengthening IT and case management systems should assist with this in the future.

5.114The Committee also believes that the identification of vulnerable customers is an area that warrants further examination by Government and regulators. While triaging and targeting of assistance is warranted, the very low rates of vulnerability identified by insurers raises questions as to whether people who should be provided with additional help are falling between the cracks.

5.115As mentioned in Chapter 2, the Committee recognises that most of the measures and recommendations outlined in this Chapter, as well as throughout the report, have equal applicability to all natural disasters.

5.116After considering the evidence provided to the inquiry outlined above, the Committee has made the following recommendations for insurers to improve the effectiveness, accessibility, and timeliness of communications with policyholders. The recommendations intend to provide better management of policyholder expectations and improved support throughout the claims experience, notably through adequate resourcing and training of staff. An on-the-ground insurer presence in the immediate aftermath of a flood and standardised guidance across insurers on post-flood clean-up instructions is also pivotal to the Committee’s recommendations.

5.117The Committee recommends that all large insurers commit to having a physical presence at major emergency hubs in affected communities as soon as possible following a natural disaster.

5.118The Committee recommends the Insurance Council of Australia in consultation with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and state, territory and local governments:

• Develop guidance for policyholders on the actions they can take to clean up their properties following a natural disaster.
• Include in the guidance any actions policyholders should take to document damage to their properties, such as taking photos to assist with their claim.
• Obtain a commitment from insurers that they will have regard for the guidance when assessing claims.
• Distribute the guidance as soon as possible to disaster-impacted local government areas.
• Make the guidance part of information distributed by insurers when a natural disaster occurs, including making the guidance available at recovery hubs in hard copy form.
• Develop debris cleanup guidance for councils.

5.119The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require that insurers, in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, provide policyholders with updated information about:

• what policyholders can expect from making a claim and the claims process,
• realistic time estimates for each step of the claims process, and
• customers’ rights to challenge decisions or raise concerns about the insurers’ conduct.

This guidance should take the form of a comprehensible and standardised diagram or flowchart.

Following major flood events, insurers should also build into their systems pathways for policyholders to receive quick responses to commonly asked questions.

5.120The Committee recommends the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require insurers to contact customers within 5 business days of the insurer becoming aware of a material change in the expected timing of any stage outlined in the guidance provided under Recommendation 30.

5.121The Committee recommends, in alignment with recommendation 3 of the 2023 Deloitte report, that insurers be required to build into their staff resourcing plans, strategies to adequately increase resourcing for key services, including call centre and claims management staff, when significant or catastrophic events occur.

5.122The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require insurers to provide all policyholders with access to real-time information about their claim’s progress and key documentation on their claim. This could be through a mobile application or other platform.

5.123The Committee recommends the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require that insurers use the ‘single point of contact’ claims management approach to the extent possible when responding to major natural disasters and ensure policyholders are informed of who their assigned case manager is as soon as practicable.

The Committee further recommends that insurers be required to accommodate the preferred communication channel nominated by a policyholder during the claim processing period.

5.124The Committee recommends that clauses 103c and 103d of the General Insurance Code of Practice be strengthened to ensure that key information is translated and available on insurers’ websites and that clause 103a should specify that this includes translating and interpreting services for Indigenous Australians.

5.125The Committee recommends that insurers invest in their IT systems to improve the storage of policyholders’ key documentation and case notes, including correspondence and discussions. Case managers should also be suitably trained and resourced to implement quality record-keeping.

5.126The Committee recommends that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission review how insurers are identifying vulnerable policyholders with a view to ensuring vulnerable policyholders are:

• consistently being identified when they make a claim;
• being identified in numbers commensurate with their prevalence; and
• provided with appropriate support throughout the claims process.

5.127The Committee recommends that insurers devote additional resources to providing vulnerable customers with assistance. Insurers should evaluate the effectiveness of this assistance after each declared event.

5.128The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice be amended to require insurers’ identification of vulnerable customers and training of staff be designed so that customer interaction is compliant with ISO 22458 2022-04, the International Organization for Standardization’s document Consumer vulnerability – Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service.

5.129The Committee recommends that insurers improve staff training to ensure staff adopt a trauma-informed approach when communicating with policyholders. This should include:

• Explicit reference to trauma-informed policies and training in the General Insurance Code of Practice (as per Recommendation 26 of the Independent Review of the General Insurance Code of Practice).
• Priority should be given to the recruitment of staff with experience from natural disasters.
• Recording, with consent, personal information to better assist people experiencing vulnerability (as per Recommendation 27 of the Independent Review of the General Insurance Code of Practice).
• Clear communication, via insurer websites and other forms of communication (such as mobile applications), the types of additional supports that the insurer makes available to consumers experiencing vulnerability.

Footnotes

[1]Insurance Council of Australia (ICA), General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 9.

[2]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, pp. 4, 21.

[3]Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), Submission 1, p. 20; Ms Latha Elenkoven, Principal Solicitor and Manager, Pine Rivers Community Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, Caboolture, 9 April 2024, p. 22; Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 42.

[4]Insurance Contracts Act 1984, s. 37C.

[5]Department of the Treasury, Standardising natural hazard definitions and reviewing standard cover for insurance, March 2024, p. 6.

[6]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 48.

[7]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 48.

[8]Department of the Treasury, Standardising natural hazard definitions and reviewing standard cover for insurance 2024, Consultation Paper, March 2024, p. 15.

[9]Department of the Treasury, Standardising natural hazard definitions and reviewing standard cover for insurance, March 2024, p. 6.

[10]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 20.

[11]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 19.

[12]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 42.

[13]ICA, Submission 11, p. [7].

[14]Mr Paul Holmes, Assistant Director, Disaster Relief, Legal Aid Queensland, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 43.

[15]Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 16, 27.

[16]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 42.

[17]Ms Jacinta Reddan, Chief Executive Officer, Advance Cairns, Committee Hansard, Cairns, 24 July 2024, p. 16.

[18]Ms Karen Rollinson, Service Navigator, Encircle Community Services, Committee Hansard, Caboolture, 9 April 2024, p. 25; Mr Steve Loane, General Manager, Forbes Shire Council, Committee Hansard, Molong, 7 May 2024, p. 5; Ms Tracey Blythe, Disaster Recovery Coordinator, Financial Counselling Victoria, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 3.

[19]Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 13.

[20]Mr Justin Understeiner, Chief Operating Officer, Australian Financial Complaints Authority, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 31.

[21]Ms Wennie van Riet, Project Lead, Mental Health and Wellbeing, GenWest, Committee Hansard, Maribyrnong, 17 April 2024, p. 31.

[22]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 10.

[23]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 21.

[24]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 46; Ms Sharon Keith, Program Manager, Disaster Legal Help Victoria, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 22.

[25]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 31.

[26]Caxton Legal Centre, Submission 28, p. 2.

[27]Ms Jacqui Cavanagh, Senior Lawyer, Financial Rights and Housing, Caxton Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, Caboolture, 9 April 2024, p. 24.

[28]Mr Andrew Hall, Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2024, p. 4.

[29]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 20.

[30]Mr Nick Hawkins, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Australia Group, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2024, p. 47.

[31]Mr Bert Bakker, Chief Operations Officer, Youi, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2024, p. 62.

[32]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 52.

[33]Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 52; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 42; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 47; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 25; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 27; Youi, Submission 14, p. 35; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 50; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 43.

[34]Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 52; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 42; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 47; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 25; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 27; Youi, Submission 14, p. 35; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 50; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 43.

[35]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 52.

[36]Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 50; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 52.

[37]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 21.

[38]Financial Legal Rights Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre, Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 54.

[39]Independent Review of the 2020 General Insurance Code of Practice, Initial Report, September 2024, p. 35.

[40]Independent Review of the 2020 General Insurance Code of Practice, Initial Report, September 2024, p. 35; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Northern Australia Insurance Inquiry Final Report, 2020, p. 448.

[41]Independent Review of the 2020 General Insurance Code of Practice, Initial Report, September 2024, p. 35.

[42]Independent Review of the 2020 General Insurance Code of Practice, Initial Report, September 2024, p. 35.

[43]Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 12.

[44]Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 12.

[45]Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 41; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 42.

[46]Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 12.

[47]Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 12.

[48]SGS Economics and Planning, The backbone of regional and rural economies: Small business and community resilience, 2021, p. 18.

[49]Ms Kirsty Evans, Director and Solicitor, Cheney Suthers Lawyers, Committee Hansard, Molong, 7 May 2024, p. 15.

[50]Insurance Contracts Act 1984, s. 44.

[51]Natural Disaster Insurance Review, Inquiry into flood insurance and related matters, September 2011, p. 96; Professor Allan Fels AO and Professor David Cousins AM, ‘Submission on Draft Recommendations’, First Interim Report of the ACCC’s Northern Australia Insurance Inquiry, 12 April 2019, p. 7.

[52]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims2023, p. 9; Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia 2023, October 2023, pp. 12-13; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 28; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 31; Youi, Submission 14, p. 11; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 10; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 19; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 21; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 18.

[53]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 9; Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 95.

[54]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 9; Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 32.

[55]Dr Prue Bagley, Community Engagement Officer, ARC Justice, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 35.

[56]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 34; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 38; Youi, Submission 14, p. 20; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 20; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 21; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 22; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 34; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 31.

[57]Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 11; Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 8, p. 3.

[58]ICA, Submission 11, p. [5].

[59]ICA, Submission 11, p. [5].

[60]ICA, Submission 11, p. [23].

[61]Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 31.

[62]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 90.

[63]Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 12.

[64]Ms Vicki Staff, National Coordinator for Disaster Recovery, Financial Counselling Australia, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 1.

[65]Dr Prue Bagley, Community Engagement Officer, ARC Justice, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 35.

[66]Councillor Steve Pickering, Councillor, Clarence Valley Council, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 4; Ms Jan Palmer, Community Engagement Officer, Gannawarra Shire Council, Committee Hansard, Rochester, 18 April 2024, p. 5; Mr Kevin Beatty, Mayor, Cabonne Council, Committee Hansard, Molong, 7 May 2024, p. 2; Mrs Elizabeth Richardson, General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council, Committee Hansard, Richmond, 9 May 2024, p. 3; Ms Kellie Massouras, Manager, Flood and Community Recovery, Mitchell Shire Council, Committee Hansard, Heathcote, 19 April 2024, p. 6; Ms Sarah Boulle, Recovery Coordinator, Byron Shire Council, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 4.

[67]Councillor Steve Pickering, Councillor, Clarence Valley Council, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 4

[68]Mrs Elizabeth Richardson, General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council, Committee Hansard, Richmond, 9 May 2024, p. 3.

[69]Mr Kevin Beatty, Mayor, Cabonne Council, Committee Hansard, Molong, 7 May 2024, p. 2.

[70]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 26.

[71]Ballina Shire Council, Submission 64, p. 2; Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 21; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 7; Youi, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p.12.

[72]Mr Steve Loane, General Manager, Forbes Shire Council, Committee Hansard, Molong, 7 May 2024, p. 6.

[73]Mr Christopher Barnes, Manager, Emergency Management and Public Safety, City of Moreton Bay, Committee Hansard, Caboolture, 9 April 2024, p. 4; Mr Kevin Beatty, Mayor, Cabonne Council, Committee Hansard, Molong, 7 May 2024, p. 2.

[70]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 83; Ballina Shire Council, Submission 64, p. 3; Ms Tracey Blythe, Disaster Recovery Coordinator, Financial Counselling Victoria, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 2; Ms Vicki Staff, National Coordinator for Disaster Recovery, Financial Counselling Australia, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 7; Mr David Keane, Submission 33, p. [3]; Ms Annette Sheppard, President, FNQ Volunteers Inc, Committee Hansard, Townsville, 25 July 2024, p. 28.

[74]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 80; Ms Tracey Blythe, Disaster Recovery Coordinator, Financial Counselling Victoria, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 2; ARC Justice, Submission 9, p. 5.

[75]Mr Tony Carusi, President, Northern Rivers Flood Action Group, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 41.

[76]Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 21.

[77]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 83; Ms Heidi Turner, Coordinator, Disaster and Emergency Management, City of Gold Coast, Committee Hansard, Logan, 10 April 2024, p. 21; Ballina Shire Council, Submission 64, p. 2.

[78]Ms Heidi Turner, Coordinator, Disaster and Emergency Management, City of Gold Coast, Committee Hansard, Logan, 10 April 2024, p. 21.

[79]Ballina Shire Council, Submission 64, p. 2

[80]Legal Aid NSW, Submission 34, p. 11; Ms Joanne Bradbury, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 49; Ms Jacqui Cavanagh, Senior Lawyer, Financial Rights and Housing, Caxton Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, Caboolture, 9 April 2024, p. 22.

[81]Mayor Jon Raven, Mayor, Logan City Council, Committee Hansard, Logan, 10 April 2024, p. 21.

[82]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 120.

[83]ICA, Submission 11, p. [18].

[84]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 4.

[85]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 18; Ms Aveley McCann, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 24; Dr Prue Bagley, Community Engagement Officer, ARC Justice, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 35; Ms Jacqui Cavanagh, Senior Lawyer, Financial Rights and Housing, Caxton Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, Caboolture, 9 April 2024, p. 23. Dr Alan Cornick, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Logan, 10 April 2024, p. 15; Mr Leslie Geofrey Pye, Chair, Richmond River Cane Growers Association, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 46.

[86]Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 11; Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 8, p. 9; Caxton Legal Centre, Submission 28, p. 5; AFCA, Submission 1, p. 33.

[87]Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 11; Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 8, p. 9; Caxton Legal Centre, Submission 28, p. 5; AFCA, Submission 1, p. 33.

[88]Ms Joanne Bradbury, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 49.

[89]Ms Anne Riley, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Cairns, 24 July 2024, p. 39.

[90]Ms Angelika Prpa, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Maribyrnong, 17 April 2024, p. 45.

[91]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 28.

[92]ICA, Submission 11, p. [1].

[93]Jobs and Skills Australia, Submission 42, p. 4.

[94]Jobs and Skills Australia, Submission 42, p. 4.

[95]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 70.

[96]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 70.

[97]Auto & General Holdings, Supplementary Submission 18.3, p. [9]; Hollard Holdings Australia, Supplementary Submission 19.2, p. [9]; QBE Insurance Group, Supplementary Submission 17.4, p. [9]; RACQ Group, Supplementary Submission 15.2, p. [9]; Youi, Supplementary Submission 14.3, p. [9]; Allianz Australia, Submission 13.3, p. [9]; Suncorp Group, Supplementary Submission 12.2, p. [9]; Insurance Australia Group, Supplementary Submission 16.4, p. [9].

[98]Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), Submission 35, p. 15.

[99]ASIC, Submission 35, p. 15.

[100]ASIC, Submission 35, p. 22.

[101]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 21.

[102]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 17.

[103]Mrs Prue Monument, General Manager, Code Compliance and Monitoring; and Chief Executive Officer, Banking Code Compliance Committee, on behalf of General Insurance Code Governance Committee, AFCA, Committee Hansard, 23 February 2024, p. 6.

[104]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 12.

[105]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 5; ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 6; Mr Andrew Hall, Chief Executive Officer, Climate, Operations and Strategy, Insurance Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2024, p. 1.

[106]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 8.

[107]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 118.

[108]ICA, Submission 11, p. [1].

[109]ICA, Submission 11, p. [3].

[110]Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 4.

[111]RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 30.

[112]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 21.

[113]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 28.

[114]General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Submission 5, p. 7.

[115]General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Submission 5, p. 7.

[116]General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Submission 5, p. 7.

[117]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, October 2023, p. 35.

[118]Mr Justin Understeiner, Chief Operating Officer, AFCA, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 29.

[119]ARC Justice, Submission 9, p. 6.

[120]Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 15; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 10; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 18; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 14; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 30; Youi, Submission 14, p. 10; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 30; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 28.

[121]RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 20.

[122]ARC Justice, Submission 9, p. 7.

[123]Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby Inc, Supplementary Submission 2.1, p. 10.

[124]Mrs Prue Monument, General Manager, Code Compliance and Monitoring; and Chief Executive Officer, Banking Code Compliance Committee, on behalf of General Insurance Code Governance Committee, AFCA, Committee Hansard, 23 February 2024, p. 12.

[125]Mr Justin Understeiner, Chief Operating Officer, AFCA, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 29.

[126]Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 26; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 18; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 11.

[127]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 39.

[128]Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 15; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 10; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 18; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 14; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 30; Youi, Submission 14, p. 10; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 30; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 28.

[129]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 11.

[130]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 35; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 39; Youi, Submission 14, p. 21; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 22; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 26; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 23; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 37; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 33.

[131]Youi, SupplementarySubmission 14.2, p. 6; Allianz Australia, Supplementary Submission 13.2, pp. 6-7; QBE Insurance Group, Supplementary Submission 17.3, p. 10; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 17; Insurance Australia Group, Supplementary Submission 16.1, p. 6-7; Suncorp Group, Supplementary Submission 12.1, p. 3; Auto & General Holdings, Supplementary Submission18.2, p. 7; Hollard Holdings Australia, Supplementary Submission19.1, p. [7].

[132]Ms Sarah Boulle, Recovery Coordinator, Byron Shire Council, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 3; Mr Magnus Linder, NSW and ACT State Manager, Disaster Recovery, Anglicare NSW, Committee Hansard, Parramatta, 10 May 2024, p. 26; Ms Sharon Keith, Program Manager, Disaster Legal Help Victoria, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 22; Mr Paul Holmes, Assistant Director, Disaster Relief, Legal Aid Queensland, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 41; Caxton Legal Centre, Submission 28, p. 5; Financial Counselling Australia, Submission 6, p. 23.

[133]Ms Sharon Keith, Program Manager, Disaster Legal Help Victoria, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 23.

[134]Mr Royden Webb, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Rochester, 18 April 2024, p. 30.

[135]Ms Madeleine Serle, President, Maribyrnong Community Recovery Association, Committee Hansard, Maribyrnong, 17 April 2024, p. 13.

[136]Dr Prue Bagley, Community Engagement Officer, ARC Justice, Committee Hansard, 1 February 2024, p. 35. Ms Sarah Boulle, Recovery Coordinator, Byron Shire Council, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 3; Ms Sharon Keith, Program Manager, Disaster Legal Help Victoria, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 22.

[137]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 11.

[138]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 33; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 37; Youi, Submission 14, p. 18; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 18; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 24; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 22; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 30; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 29.

[139]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 33; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 37; Youi, Submission 14, p. 18; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 18; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 24; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 22; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 30; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 29.

[140]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 34; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 28; Youi, Submission 14, p. 19; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 9; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 25; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 33; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 30.

[141]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 34; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 37; Youi, Submission 14, p. 18; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 24; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 22; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 30; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 29.

[142]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 28.

[143]Mr David Carter, Managing Director and Group Chief Executive Officer, Royal Automobile Club of Queensland Limited, Committee Hansard, 9 February 2024, p. 8; ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 6.

[144]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 18.

[145]Financial Rights Legal Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre and Westjustice, Supplementary Submission 27.3, p. [52].

[146]Ms Svea Pitman, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Lismore, 11 April 2024, p. 52.

[147]Legal Aid New South Wales, Submission 34, p. 21.

[148]General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Submission 5, p. 7.

[149]Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 3.

[150]Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Legal Rights Centre, Committee Hansard, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 3.

[151]Mr Justin Understeiner, Chief Operating Officer, Australian Financial Complaints Authority, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 29; Ms Philippa Heir, Managing Lawyer, Consumer Action Law Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 4; Financial Rights Legal Centre, CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre and Westjustice, Submission 27, p. 30.

[152]General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Oversight of External Experts, August2024, p. 5.

[153]General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Oversight of External Experts, August 2024, p. 5.

[154]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 17; Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 84.

[155]Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 18; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 26; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 8.

[156]Youi, SupplementarySubmission 14.2, p. 6; Allianz Australia, Supplementary Submission 13.2, p. 6-7; QBE Insurance Group, Supplementary Submission 17.3, p. 10; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 17; Insurance Australia Group, Supplementary Submission 16.1, p. 6; Suncorp Group, Supplementary Submission 12.1, p. 3; Auto & General Holdings, Supplementary Submission18.2, p. 7; Hollard Holdings Australia, Supplementary Submission19.1, p. [7].

[157]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 31.

[158]Mr Andrew Hall, Chief Executive Officer, Climate, Operations and Strategy, Insurance Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 5 February 2024, p. 10.

[146]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 30.

[147]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 29.

[145]Youi, Submission 14, p. 17; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 36; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 21; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 17; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 33; Mr Ram Kangatharan, Group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Auto & General Insurance Company Ltd, Committee Hansard, 22 March 2024, p. 23; Mr Paul Fahey, Chief Executive Officer, Hollard Insurance Company, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 26.

[159]AFCA, Submission 1, p. 29; General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Supplementary Submission 5.2, p. 3.

[160]General Insurance Code Governance Committee, Supplementary Submission 5.2, p. 3

[161]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 32; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 35; Youi, Submission 14, p. 17; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 16; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 23; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 20; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 26.

[162]ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 9.

[163]Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 25; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 35; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 23; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 9; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 27; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 20; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 15; Youi, Submission 14, p. 16.

[164]RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 15; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 23.

[165]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 12; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 21; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 27.

[166]Youi, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 9; Allianz Australia, Supplementary Submission 13.1, p. 7; RACQ Group, Supplementary Submission 15.1, p. 7; Suncorp Group, Supplementary Submission 12.1, p. 4; Insurance Australia Group, Supplementary Submission 16.1, p. 7; Auto & General Holdings, Supplementary Submission 18.1, p. 7; Hollard Holdings Australia, Supplementary Submission 19.1, p. [8].

[167]Youi, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 9

[168]Allianz Australia, Supplementary Submission 13.1, p. 7

[169]Auto & General Holdings, Supplementary Submission 18.1, p. 7; Hollard Holdings Australia, Supplementary Submission 19.1, p. [8].

[170]Insurance Australia Group, Supplementary Submission 16.1, p. 7

[171]Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 27.

[172]International Organization for Standardization, ISO 22458: 2022 Consumer vulnerability – Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service, p. 1.

[173]Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 27.

[174]Youi, Submission 14, p. 17; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 36; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 21; RACQ Group, Submission 15, p. 15; Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 32; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 4; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 24.

[175]QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 21; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 27.

[176]Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 27.

[177]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 7.

[178]Mr Magnus Linder, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory State Manager, Disaster Recovery, Anglicare NSW, Committee Hansard, Parramatta, 10 May 2024, p. 25; Victorian Council of Social Service, Submission 10, p. [3]; Ms Bernadette Wright, Counsellor and Mental Health Support, Rochester Community House, Committee Hansard, Rochester, 18 April 2024, p. 16; Ms Sharon Keith, Program Manager, Disaster Legal Help Victoria, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 22; Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 1; Ms Ma’ata Solofoni, Senior Solicitor, Disaster Recovery and Insurance, Legal Aid New South Wales, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 31; Ms Evgenia Bourova, Professor Ian Ramsay and Associate Professor Paul Ali, Submission 57, p. [2]; Victorian Council of Social Service, Submission 10, p. [2].

[179]Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 31 January 2024, p. 2.

[180]ICA, General Insurance Code of Practice, 5 October 2021, p. 34.

[181]Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 8, p. 3.

[182]Caxton Legal Centre, Submission 28, p. 5; Name Withheld, Submission 48, p. [3].

[183]Suncorp Group, Submission 12, p. 34; Allianz Australia, Submission 13, p. 37; Youi, Submission 14, p. 18; Insurance Australia Group, Submission 16, p. 24; QBE Insurance Group, Submission 17, p. 22; Auto & General Holdings, Submission 18, p. 30; Hollard Holdings Australia, Submission 19, p. 29.

[184]Deloitte, The new benchmark for catastrophe preparedness in Australia, October 2023, p. 40; ASIC, Navigating the storm: ASIC’s review of home insurance claims, 16 August 2023, p. 13.