Storm chasers. Disaster chasers. Unscrupulous actors. These are the labels the Insurance Council of Australia hand other stakeholders have casually thrown around in recent months. Unfortunately, these sweeping terms have been allowed to overshadow and unfairly tarnish the work of genuine advocates like Claims Hero and the incredible people who show up every day to support vulnerable customers.
These labels have now become a recurring feature in industry and insurer communications:
- Insurance Council of Australia: “Look out, disaster chasers about” — a consumer alert warning Australians to be cautious of unsolicited assistance after disasters
- Insurance Council of Australia: “Insurers warn cyclone and flood impacted communities to beware of ‘disaster chasers’” – a national press release targeting claims support providers
- Insurance News: “Drawn to the storm” – a feature article reflecting the insurance industry’s position that third-party advocates complicate claims and may harm customers.
- Insurance News: Editorial calling for a code of conduct for claim handlers, citing a “few unethical operators” and quoting legitimate practices as breaches of regulatory obligations
- RACQ: “Be alert to scams following severe weather events” — a consumer warning that disaster chasers may pose as insurer representatives
And these are just a few examples.
Yes, there are bad actors. And yes, consumer protection matters. But when definitions are so vague and the language so poorly considered that it captures licensed, ethical professionals providing real support, the public is being misled.
We have asked the ICA and other industry spokespeople, time and again, to refine their language. To stop painting everyone with the same brush. A brush that conveniently protects incumbents and deflects scrutiny. They have not changed a word.
So let me tell you what a so-called storm chaser does.
A few weeks ago, during an unprecedentedly busy period where I had no time to spare, my partner and I flew to Sydney. Not to lodge a claim. Not to knock on doors. Not to chase a disaster. But to help a vulnerable elderly client move house. This was seven years after her insurer first accepted the claim.
Could the insurer have organised the relocation? Maybe. But everyone involved knew it would not have happened properly or with the care and dignity this client deserved. In fact, the insurer themselves acknowledged that their contractors would likely struggle to meet the mark without further issues.
What we actually did:
- We flew to Sydney the day before.
- We hired a ute.
- We went late-night shopping to buy essential items.
- We arrived at 7am to begin packing.
- We helped her pack her life into boxes.
- We transported the boxes from her current house to the new apartment.
- We unpacked everything.
- We assembled flatpack furniture.
- We set up the internet.
- We spent hours on the phone to the telecommunications company trying to sort out connection issues. We purchased phones and set them up to ensure her family could contact her.
- We installed security cameras.
- We cut extra keys to enable repairs to commence.
- We worked through detailed checklists from her daughter who lives on the other side of the world so she could feel confident and connected from afar.
- We loaded the ute with rubbish and took it to the tip.
- We fixed the chicken coop to ensure her chickens had shade while repairs continued.
- We cleaned the new apartment and undertook repairs to ensure it was safe and secure.
- We stayed with her. We comforted her as strangers entered her space. We did not leave until it was done.
And the outcome? After two days, despite what the industry would have you believe, for the first time in seven years, this woman was finally moved into appropriate alternate accommodation, ready for long-overdue repairs to begin. She felt supported, cared for, and reassured that her belongings were treated with the respect they deserved. The very outcome insurers claim to champion was delivered, not by their systems, but by the so-called “storm chasers” they routinely condemn.
And to be clear, this is not a post attacking the insurer involved. Quite the opposite. They have been among the most supportive we have dealt with when it comes to helping vulnerable customers. They even fund our role in this claim.
But they are not paying for this kind of work. A few weeks ago, Claims Hero went thousands of dollars out of pocket. And that is fine. Because you cannot put a price on dignity. And you cannot put a price on staying true to why we started this work in the first place.
This was not disaster chasing. It was decency.
So if standing up for vulnerable people makes us “storm chasers”, then we’ll wear that label with pride. I can assure you that the CEOs, executives and industry spokespeople pushing narratives of division have not helped an elderly customer relocate or navigate the system in recent months. In reality, many are so far removed from genuine customer interaction, aside from the occasional photo opportunity, that their words ring hollow. If you’re looking for unscrupulous behaviour, be wary of those cloaked in the language of consumer protection. The real danger is not the advocates standing with policyholders. It is those who hide behind slogans like “we’re here to help”, when their actions suggest otherwise.
The call to action
It is time to change the language.
Catchy headlines and lazy schoolyard name calling may serve a media cycle or protect an industry’s image, but they do little to support the people who matter most. Vulnerable customers are not helped by fear campaigns. They are helped by action, compassion, and accountability.
We are calling on the Insurance Council of Australia, insurers, and industry media to lift the standard. Stop leaning on slogans that demonise those doing the work you will not. Stop conflating misconduct with advocacy. Stop using language that obscures your own failures while discrediting those who fill the gaps left behind.
Instead, start naming the conduct you oppose with precision. Focus your efforts on the genuine harms, not the headlines. And if you truly care about outcomes for disaster survivors, work with those who are already walking alongside them.
Because the real threat is not the people helping. It is the culture that pretends words are enough.