This work addresses an important topic related to the hazards associated with storm Gloria. Although the approach followed by the authors is outside my area of expertise, I have tried to provide a few suggestions to improve the flow and clarity of the manuscript. You are free to accept or reject my suggestions.

Lines 11-14: “The coastal strip…. Insurance Compensation (CCS) payouts”, these sentence are useless in the abstract. Consider to delete them.

Lines 18-24: “Multivariate…..” this sentence is too long and difficult to follow.

Lines 24-26: “Overall, the largest compensation values tend to occur where hazard levels are highest, although exposure, vulnerability, and insurance coverage modulate the final impacts”. This statement is not clear for a reader. How, your analysis is suitable for the hazard levels, mostly considering the return period that you obtained. This is important for a reader.

Line 35: substitute “affected” with “impacted”.

Line 99: check the term “realisations”, consider to change in “simulations”

Line 106: substitute “scope” with “area”.

Line 168 and Figure 2: I suggest to improve the synoptic description of the event, maybe using the MSLP from ERA5 with wind vectors at different time steps.

Line 185: this last sentence derives from a literature source or is it an outcome of your analysis?

Lines 315: From this point I suggest to reorganize the structure of the subsections. Avoid the subdivision in Type, Description and Probabilistic Analysis for the subsections.

Line 393: the Figure 7 reports only the points of raingauges and buoy, no results are mapped, the same for the Figure 8.

Line 605: The conclusion is very long, I suggest to summarize the outcomes of the study.

I have only some minor remarks on the manuscript. Otherwise, the manuscript is written in good English and contains interesting and important results.

I think the title of the manuscript is a bit misleading. The main topic of the manuscript is not the values of joint probabilities, which are discussed quite briefly, but the description of the Gloria storm and its impacts in different coastal regions. I suggest the authors to shorten the title to " Storm Gloria (2020): multiple flood hazards ..." (rest of the title as it is).

In many places, the authors refer to "wave height", "highest recorded wave height" , "maximum wave height" etc.  I suppose they mean always the observed significant wave height, not measurements of individual waves. This should be clarified at least. I suggest to correct these terms when necessary, as in Table 2 and elsewhere. 

I suggest to add explanation of TCA (atypical cyclonic storms) to Table and Figure captions so that the reader does not have to search for it. Alternatively TCA could be mentioned already in the abstract.