Parliamentary inquiry hears insurance delays, rejections, compounded Eugowra's flood trauma

Yet it wasn't until 14 months after that - more than a year of political and media pressure, of phoning their insurer every Monday morning and spending hours on hold - that they had the promise of a settlement.

Only in recent weeks has their ruined home been demolished. Only now can they look at rebuilding.

The couple were at the core of the call for a federal Parliamentary inquiry in insurers' response to the 2022 flood disasters, and finally had the chance to give evidence at the committee's public hearing in Eugowra on May 8.

They were among about a dozen locals to tell the inquiry of their experiences with their insurers in the wake of the fatal and destructive flood event.

Some have been left to pay a mortgage on a home that's not even there any more, others face a repair or rebuild bill in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But even some of those who have had a positive outcome shared experiences of stress and frustration in the months before.

Flood cover would have cost one Eugowra resident who shared their story $22,000 a year, another $32,000 a year.

They opted out. After all, the properties they were purchasing had never been affected by flood.

But some did have stormwater and even tsunami cover, and their hopes rested in the event of 14 November 2022 being classified as a storm event rather than a flood.

Joshua Dawson told the inquiry he showed his insurer's hydrologist how the water had come through from the front of his property - not from the Mandagery Creek which lies behind it.

He explained the direction of the water was evident from the side of the fence the canola carried on the water was on, and he had video footage.

Josh understood his neighbours had shared similar stories, yet the final report determined the event was a flood, the water coming from the Mandagery Creek.

When his claim was turned down, Joshua appealed to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, but he couldn't find or afford another hydrologist to refute the initial report.

Josh wasn't the only one to share heartbreak over a hydrologist's report.

Rosemary Townsend also walked a hydrologist over their property - an acreage that again had not flooded before - explaining how the water that inundated their home and sheds and destroyed the tools of her husband's business was stormwater.

Their claim too was denied.

"We insured for earthquake, fire, tsunami, stormwater, but because we're on a small property we're not allowed to insure for flood," Rosemary told the inquiry. "We weren't actually told that at the time."

The Townsends sought legal advice but were told they would have to find a hydrologist to refute or disagree with that original report.

Josh tried, he told the inquiry, but they were hard to find: either too far away or too expensive.

Hugh Ellis said he and wife Lyn had two hydrologists from two insurance companies visit the shell that was left of their home in the wake of the disaster.

They too were insured for stormwater or even tsunami. They thought they had prepared for the flood events the property had experienced in the past - with a retaining wall built to the height of a one-in-100 year flood - but the water on 14 November 2022 was nearly two metres higher and came with devastating force.

Both their claims were denied.

For Josh and his young family, the decision means home remains the government-supplied two-bedroom pod, with quotes to restore their home to a safe and inhabitable standard totalling some $240,000.

Waiting hours on hold on the phone and reliving the nightmare of 14 November 2022 by having to tell their story over and over was another common experience shared at the hearing.

If only, community members told the inquiry, they could have got through to a person or team who knew about the Eugowra event and could update them on their case.

Sean Haynes was one of those allocated a case manager. Unfortunately, he told the inquiry, they didn't return his calls or emails.

"Insurers need to start listening and supporting their policy-holders," he told the inquiry.

"When a policy-holder goes to them it's in their time of need. and it's about ensuring they respond with respect and dignity."

Hugh Ellis also spoke of not getting answers to calls or emails.

"We were shocked at the lack of respect for having been loyal customers for nearly 40 years and having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars during our time as farmers - and didn't make a claim," he said.

"We understand they are businesses but we would ask them to understand that we're not just a policy number."

Some policy holders' monthly insurance payments continued to be taken even after claims were denied, even when properties were left uninhabitable.

"Although we cancelled this policy they continued to take our monthly premium for five months and sent us a renewal," Hugh Ellis said.

The Smiths were only able to get payments stopped when their home - unliveable since 14 November 2022 - was demolished last month.

Further angst was to come for Josh Dawson when he received a renewal letter from his insurer, offering him cover including flood for $4600. A year earlier it had been priced at $22,000.

"I questioned that, how come my renewal is $4600? I would have had that," he told the inquiry. He still wants an explanation.

The Parliamentary Inquiry into insurers' response to the 2022 major floods has already heard from the Insurance Council and received submissions from major insurance companies.

Hearings with flood-affected communities continue in Sydney, with the committee is to report by 30 September 2024.

Chair Daniel Mulino MP, Susan Templeman MP and Andrew Gee MP thanked Eugowra residents for sharing their experiences, particularly acknowledging how difficult it was.

"I think members of the committee have a really clear understanding of the devastation that was wrought in this region from the storm and flood event but also the devastation from decisions and actions of insurance companies," Mr Gee said.

"From my own point of view and observations ... I think the trauma of that time was compounded and made much worse by the treatment of insurance companies to policy holders and I would go as far to say it was mistreatment in certain cases."