After the flood 73
5000 house and 3000 contents insurance claims were made, totalling almost
AU $100 million (ICA 2018b). We interviewed 15 residents of Greater
Hobart whose homes had been damaged in the event. Interviewees were
six men and nine women, across a wide age range from their early 20s to
mid-80s. Interviews occurred between one month and four months after the
flood event. Three of the participants were interviewed multiple times, at
approximately monthly interviews from one month to four months after the
event, to document their ongoing experience after the flood.
Thirteen participants were homeowners, two were renters. Most of their
homes had been damaged by pluvial floodwater overwhelming the stormwater system, but one was also damaged by a fluvial flood, and one had its
roof blown off in the storm. Twelve of the thirteen homeowners put in insurance claims, while neither of the renters were covered by insurance, and one
homeowner living in the floodplain decided not to claim for damage to their
property.
Among the insured participants, the experience of negotiating insurance claims was broadly similar. This experience was notable for the way
in which insurance rationalities acted to contradict the knowledge and
testimony of the insured, and to destabilise participants’ sense of control
and agency in the aftermath of the disaster. Participants described their
attempts to navigate insurance jargon, worried that using the wrong terms
‘might give [the insurer] little loopholes,’ and reading the policy document
‘with a fine-toothed comb’ to be prepared with the right (insurance) language to negotiate (Yvette, homeowner, 40s). This reflects participants’
partial engagement with insurance discourses around flood, which differentiate between stormwater inundation and water escaped from watercourses
such as rivers. Participants were concerned that some forms of flood might
be excluded, but, as Herman (homeowner, 50s) described, in practice it
made little difference to the experience: ‘The stormwater washed things into
the floodwater… Well, it was all bloody rain.’
They described the arrival of multiple assessors with diverse claims of
expertise, from hydrologists and hygienists to plumbers and loss adjustors,
come to document the type of damage, and how it might be covered by the
insurance. Insured participants all described this as a disorienting process
because of the number and variety of experts sent by the insurers to assess
cases – often more than ten for one property. In most cases, these actors
produced reports that either contradicted householders’ own testimony, or
contradicted one another.
One group would come and say, ‘yes, your curtains need replacing
because of the mould and the smell’. One would say ‘the whole bed base
and the mattress all gets replaced’. The next ones would say, ‘no, just
the mattress. We don’t replace the base’. So we didn’t really know where
we were.
(Rowan, homeowner, 80s)
5000 house and 3000 contents insurance claims were made, totalling almost
AU $100 million (ICA 2018b). We interviewed 15 residents of Greater
Hobart whose homes had been damaged in the event. Interviewees were
six men and nine women, across a wide age range from their early 20s to
mid-80s. Interviews occurred between one month and four months after the
flood event. Three of the participants were interviewed multiple times, at
approximately monthly interviews from one month to four months after the
event, to document their ongoing experience after the flood.
Thirteen participants were homeowners, two were renters. Most of their
homes had been damaged by pluvial floodwater overwhelming the stormwater system, but one was also damaged by a fluvial flood, and one had its
roof blown off in the storm. Twelve of the thirteen homeowners put in insurance claims, while neither of the renters were covered by insurance, and one
homeowner living in the floodplain decided not to claim for damage to their
property.
Among the insured participants, the experience of negotiating insurance claims was broadly similar. This experience was notable for the way
in which insurance rationalities acted to contradict the knowledge and
testimony of the insured, and to destabilise participants’ sense of control
and agency in the aftermath of the disaster. Participants described their
attempts to navigate insurance jargon, worried that using the wrong terms
‘might give [the insurer] little loopholes,’ and reading the policy document
‘with a fine-toothed comb’ to be prepared with the right (insurance) language to negotiate (Yvette, homeowner, 40s). This reflects participants’
partial engagement with insurance discourses around flood, which differentiate between stormwater inundation and water escaped from watercourses
such as rivers. Participants were concerned that some forms of flood might
be excluded, but, as Herman (homeowner, 50s) described, in practice it
made little difference to the experience: ‘The stormwater washed things into
the floodwater… Well, it was all bloody rain.’
They described the arrival of multiple assessors with diverse claims of
expertise, from hydrologists and hygienists to plumbers and loss adjustors,
come to document the type of damage, and how it might be covered by the
insurance. Insured participants all described this as a disorienting process
because of the number and variety of experts sent by the insurers to assess
cases – often more than ten for one property. In most cases, these actors
produced reports that either contradicted householders’ own testimony, or
contradicted one another.
One group would come and say, ‘yes, your curtains need replacing
because of the mould and the smell’. One would say ‘the whole bed base
and the mattress all gets replaced’. The next ones would say, ‘no, just
the mattress. We don’t replace the base’. So we didn’t really know where
we were.
(Rowan, homeowner, 80s)