Considering removing flood cover

One of my IPs is just one house inside a flood zone. Prior to the 2011 Brissy floods, it wasn't even in the flood zone. It's a highset, so the house itself is already a couple of metres above ground level. It would save me over $2k a year if I were to remove the flood cover, but keep the rest of the building policy. I'm covered for public liability through my landlord insurance. And I have a contingency fund and other sources of rental income, so the loss of rent is no big issue, but obviously the cost of rebuilding if my house were to float away is something I'd have to bear.

Am I mad?

 

I looked at many places that the bris flood map had covered, yet insurers were same as normal, but lowsets in the same street had never ever been wet.

I tend to think insurers go off of what has happened prior, maybe water has damaged some places in your street, anyways, if you have the cash and capital to cover potential outcomes, then the risk is maybe ok for you.

I know people who have never had normal insurance, let alone landlord, no car insurance, no nothing with insurance, and they justified it by saying the premiums over x years would be more than any outlay, so self insured in a way. Many do not have this luxury, but if you have a house on a block, let's say the block is worth 400 vacant, and you have no mortgage or a small mortgage, paid 200k years ago, then a flood that floats the house away may be an ok thing.

 

Pm some Brisbane locals the address? I work on a site that has never flooded - but I keep expecting it to