But it has let itself down in taking the lead now in offering flood insurance to householders. The problem is that it has not explained well enough that it is offering an extra cover, that it is not withdrawing any existing cover, and so some NRMA Insurance policy holders in flood-prone areas will believe they must pay a dramatically increased premium or be uninsured. Certainly that was the belief of my good friend Bill English, a Hamilton South resident who was quoted in a Herald news report about the flood premium this week.

An example of the confusion is in NRMA Insurance literature that says the new flood cover, which is optional for people in flood-prone areas, includes water escaping from "such as a river, lake, stormwater channel, canal or dam". Stormwater channel? Flood? Not covered by policies without the optional flood cover?

The head of NRMA Insurance's sales and service, David Brown, was emphatic and clear when I spoke with him yesterday. None of the company's policy holders would have less cover as a result of the new flood cover, he said.

Would NRMA Insurance's customers who were covered under the storm provisions for damage caused by the storm of June '07 be covered without the flood option if the same storm and damage occurred now?

Yes, Mr Brown said.

That is so much more clear than anything Bill had read or been told by the company's call centre. Indeed, he was under the impression that unless he trebled his insurance premium his home would not be covered for storm damage.

Was that your interpretation? Have you had a similar offer from another insurance company for home flood cover? And if you have a specific query about NRMA Insurance's flood cover I'll try to get a response.