Understanding flood risk in strata buildings: insights from the insurance world

For many Australian body corporates, flooding is no longer a hypothetical risk. Basement inundation, damaged services, access issues and rising insurance costs are becoming familiar — even in buildings that have never experienced a “major” flood.

A recent presentation by Lochton, Understanding Flood Risk in Australia, offered a rare inside view from flood insurers and underwriters. The message was confronting, but highly relevant for strata committees.

The short version is this:

Flood risk is becoming harder to insure, harder to predict, and harder to manage — especially at the building scale.

Why flood risk feels so confusing for body corporates

From a strata perspective, flood risk often feels contradictory:

  • your building may be mapped as “high risk” but has never flooded

  • or it may flood repeatedly despite appearing well outside flood zones

  • insurers raise premiums or excesses without clear explanation

  • engineers and modellers don’t always agree

  • owners expect certainty that simply doesn’t exist

The Lochton presentation made clear that this confusion is not accidental — it reflects the nature of flood risk itself.

Flood is one of the most localised and unpredictable risks in Australia.

Two neighbouring buildings can experience completely different outcomes from the same rainfall event due to:

  • small elevation differences

  • drainage and maintenance issues

  • basement layouts and service locations

  • access routes flooding before buildings do

For body corporates, this means flood maps and return periods rarely tell the whole story.

Why insurers struggle with flood — and why that matters to strata

One of the most important insights from the presentation came from flood underwriting experience.

Even with sophisticated models, flood insurance portfolios are extremely difficult to make profitable.

This is because:

  • losses are highly correlated during major rain events

  • a small number of buildings often flood repeatedly

  • damage is driven by duration, clean-up and downtime — not just water depth

  • business interruption and loss of use can exceed repair costs

For body corporates, this explains several familiar trends:

  • rising flood premiums

  • higher flood excesses

  • restricted coverage for basements and services

  • slower, more contested claims processes

The key implication is simple:

Insurance alone is not a flood management strategy.

Flood risk that looks “insured” on paper can still turn into a financial and governance crisis for a body corporate.

Why small, frequent floods matter more than disasters

Strata committees often focus on rare, catastrophic floods — the “1-in-100 year” event.

But from an insurance and cost perspective, it is often smaller, repeated floods that cause the most damage over time:

  • frequent basement water ingress

  • repeated damage to lifts, switchboards and pumps

  • mould, corrosion and asset deterioration

  • ongoing premium increases after each claim

These events rarely make headlines, but they steadily erode:

  • sinking funds

  • insurability

  • owner confidence

  • committee goodwill

Flood risk is really about what fails first

For most strata buildings, flood damage is not uniform.

The critical questions are:

  • when does water first enter the building?

  • which systems are affected first?

  • what prevents residents accessing or occupying the building?

  • what delays clean-up and reinstatement?

In many cases, modest water depths cause major disruption because:

  • electrical rooms sit below ground

  • basements have poor drainage or backflow protection

  • access roads flood before buildings do

  • responsibility for action during events is unclear

Understanding these failure pathways is far more useful than debating flood probabilities.

Resilience for body corporates means faster recovery

The Lochton presentation also highlighted a shift in how flood resilience is being approached — including in insurance markets.

Because:

  • losses are uncertain

  • claims take time

  • recovery costs escalate quickly

Greater emphasis is being placed on:

  • speed of recovery

  • access to funds immediately after events

  • operational preparedness

  • proportionate, staged mitigation measures

For body corporates, resilience is not about eliminating flood risk — it is about:

  • reducing repeated damage

  • limiting disruption

  • restoring the building quickly

  • avoiding emergency levies and disputes

What good flood decision-making looks like for strata

Body corporate committees are not expected to eliminate all risk.

They are expected to make decisions that are:

  • reasonable

  • proportionate

  • evidence-based

  • defensible over time

This means:

  • accepting uncertainty rather than chasing false precision

  • focusing on consequences, not just probabilities

  • prioritising actions that materially reduce disruption

  • documenting decisions clearly for owners and insurers

Good flood management is not about perfection — it’s about making decisions you can stand behind.

The Strabo Rivers approach to strata flood risk

At Strabo Rivers, we work with body corporates to move from:

  • confusion → clarity

  • reaction → prioritisation

  • fear → defensible action

We do not replace flood engineers or insurers.

Our role is to help strata committees:

  • understand what flood risk actually means for their building

  • identify the few actions that matter most

  • align physical, operational and financial responses

  • make decisions that hold up under uncertainty

Flood risk in Australia is getting harder — but better, calmer decisions are still possible.

If your building has experienced flooding, rising insurance costs, or growing uncertainty about flood risk, Strabo Rivers can help you clarify what matters and what to do next. Contact Sebastian - sebastian@straborivers.com or +61 407 700 443

Previous
Previous

Parametric insurance and body corporates: some practical observations for strata committees

Next
Next

Urban Densification: Policy Input or Market Output?