Try not to get too lawyerly on me; imagine you’re telling a kid.

You might come up with something like: a whole stack of water that comes suddenly and ruins stuff.

Very commendable, but I’m afraid you fail miserably.

That’s way too simple and understandable, not nearly open enough to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, obfuscation, equivocation, evasion and deception.

There’s not nearly enough wriggle room there, so go find another industry in which to excel.

Insurance companies are so good at avoiding payouts, so adept at finding get-out clauses, that the Federal Government has been forced to define a flood for them.

Here it is. It’s worth reading and, no, I am not making this up.

A flood will now mean ‘‘the covering of normally dry land by water that has escaped or been released from the normal confines of: a) any lake, or any river, creek or other natural watercourse, whether or not altered or modified; or b) any reservoir, canal or dam.’’ It’s part of draft regulations released for consultation by the end of the year.

The aim is to ensure all home insurance policies offer flood cover, including this standard definition of a flood, so that home owners and businesses don’t get caught out by fine print.

What has brought it on?

Years of confusion and heartbreak, but specifically the floods last January that left some 20,000 homes and businesses inundated in Brisbane and Ipswich.

Insurers refused more than 7500 claims for damage on the basis of the source of the water.

The what? I thought all water had the same source - the clouds in the sky. But insurers have other ideas. Which means many unsuspecting home owners thought they were covered, but weren’t.

And that some people received insurance payouts while their neighbours did not.

It also meant some people who had separate policies for their residence and contents received a payout for one but not the other.