Almost certainly two, being the $889m covers reinstated as per the most recent NZX announcement. I tried to point out in #1807 with reference to actual examples that catastrophe cover is only rarely triggered because to do so claims need to at least be above the excess retention sum, otherwise they will be expensed as a "large event" within the $40m TWR has currently provided for FY23 for that purpose.
So yes, it is concerning to have these occurrences in quick succession. On the other hand, shareholders need to accept that the social purpose of insurance companies is to pay claims in accordance with its contractual relationship with customers. In fact, claims are a business-as-usual circumstance.
The sheer number of claims arising thou will cause administration/processing costs to be above what could reasonably have been anticipated/provided for, and likely not just in FY23 but further out as settlements are delayed into FY24 and possibly beyond. So there are indirect as well as direct impacts upon profitability.
The debate about rebuilding v managed retreat is really underway now in this country. What is obvious is that many currently adversely affected cannot hope for a timely resolution so heartbreak, despair, grief, anger and the whole gamut of emotions will fester on. I thought the TWR Chair was clear at the recent ASM that insurers were not going to contribute more financially to assist as it was not their role, and basically I agree with that.