Dr. Swenja Surminski:

When it comes to reinstatement, it is clear a building has been flooded so it is quite likely it will flood again. If there is a very clear case, which has been appraised and on which a cost-benefit analysis has been done, flood risk should be considered when repairs and building work are done. The problem at present is this usually increases the claims cost, which means reinstating a house in a flood resilient way is more expensive than reinstating it as is. The question then raised is whose obligation it is to pay for the increase in cost and so far insurers have stated unless they are required by building codes or regulation to reinstate it they will not do so.

That is another example. There might be a case for intervening and setting the principles.