Here is a very interesting excerpt from a discussion on who pays in situations of concurrent damage/consequent damage:

Tom

19107. Allstate Insurance - Landlord's Policy
by TommyI, 9/13/05 16:55 ET
Just got a call from Allstate. We have a landlord's policy w/them. They said they will give us 2 weeks worth of rent for our units because of the madatory evacuation. They didn't have our specific policy, but said that is separate from Loss of Use Coverage. Just wanted to put that out there if anyone needed it.

19103. Katrina & Insurance Proceeds
by Chathamchats, 9/13/05 16:44 ET
The person posting this message is an insurance coverage lawyer and a Lakefront resident. First, because the scope of our loss is indescribable, I just want to figuratively hug all who have lost so much, both tangibly and intangibly. It's as much a way of life that's been lost as a physical thing: fun over drinks at the Steak Knife, for example, or burgers and spuds across the street -- incomparable snowballs next to puppies and little fishies. However, this note is primarily intended to remind all of you who are agonizing over your insurance issues, and who are not lawyers -- we can actually be useful on occasion -- that it is impossible to intelligently discuss the issues that are about to arise on an unprecedented scale between homeowners and the private insurance industry in this place. Forgive the cliche, but it's too complicated. Just count on this; the property and casualty insurance industry is not going to willingly and quickly pay billions and billions of dollars in benefits for losses they don't believe are covered. It don't work that way, and much of this is driven by the reinsurance industry in London anyway. Want money -- fly to London, stand in front of Lloyd's, and scream your head off. It's their dollars, at the end of the day! In addition, intelligent discussion of the issues demands the discussion of policy language to do correctly. This is not something one can do here. However, forget all about the industry willingly and voluntarily accepting the argument that the losses actually sprang from negligence respecting the floodwalls -- and are thus covered losses. That ain't happenin! To the contrary, the relevant exclusions explicitly provide that if there are concurrent causes of loss, some of which are not covered, there is no coverage under the homeowners policy. So, a flood caused by massive stupidity is still not covered -- that's the industry position, at least in writing! On the other hand, the private policies typically have considerably higher limits than the flood policies, and are thus enormously valuable things. The key is to trigger both policies -- where both are held. It is vital that everyone remember that these are totally distinct insurance products insuring totally different risks. The reason a huge coverage battle with the industry is about to arrive, especially for Miss. residents, is because there are such huge incentives to trigger homowners policies massively and the industry will resist that aggressively, contending that the bulk of the loss has been caused by water, which these policies are designed not to cover. At the end of the day, lawyers will likely have to sort this out in litigation. You can reasonably expect class actions to be filed quite soon over these issues. Hopefully, however, and this cannot be emphasized too strongly, it won't come to that and the private underwriters will pay a percentage of their limits to avoid this enormously costly litigation, partly because the industry is likely to lose the litigation as long as the litigation is in state courts. Federal courts may well be a different story, however, a striking irony in a state that has so preponderantly voted in ways that have transormed the federal courts by altering the nature of the persons who people them. Sorry folks, but that's what happens when you vote for folks who are so mentally challenged. In short, stay informed and get ready for the coming war. Try to file your proofs of loss with all insurers as soon as you can. Remember, detail is critical; the form of the proof is unimportant as a matter of law -- detail is all. This will start the clock running on payment by the carrier; and then things will start to happen

19088. insurance
by BywaterBlues, 9/13/05 15:44 ET
Water damage from roof, windows or wind blowing water in is covered under Homeowners Policy. Rising water ie flood- is covered under flood policy. If you were denied flood ins. FEMA should pick up the tab. there are alot of people in the same boat- we will be taken care of- as long as I am around.

19106.1.1. not quite
by BywaterBlues, 9/13/05 17:12 ET
Re: Too complicated? by BywaterBlues, 9/13/05
Homeowners pays for water damage caused by anything other than RISING WATER (flood) so if there is water in your house because the roof is torn off or because windows and doors are open- Homeowners should cover it

19106.1. Untitled
by nolanjaxfl, 9/13/05 17:05 ET
Re: Too complicated? by BywaterBlues, 9/13/05
if you have a drop of water in your home homeowner will not pay