Those in the restoration industry are taught in water-damage restoration schools that soaked building materials are brought to this state by a leak or a flood. In other words, to a trained and certified water-damage restoration technician (WRT) or a technician who has advanced training and certification in Applied Structural Drying, wet building materials and contents become water damaged as a result of a flooding condition. To paint a mental picture from a water-damage restoration contractor's perspective, a flood can result from an upper floor pipe break in which cascading water comes down stairwells and ceilings.

So what's the problem? The restoration industry uses one set of terms and the insurance industry uses another to describe the cause and events leading up to a building's water damage. Did you know that the insurance industry does not like the word “flooded,” because it is to be used only in the context of community-wide flooding? Google “building floods” and you will see a shift from geological and insurance terms to restoration companies, news articles, and legal cases.

The terms “water damaged” and “flood damaged” are synonymous in the restoration industry. So the questions is, are wet building materials water damaged? Or have they been flooded? Both? In the past year, I made an effort to talk to water-damage restoration contractors, property claim adjusters, and IICRC teachers about flooded buildings. Without letting them know my reasons, I used the words “flooded” and “water damaged” in the same sentence; they replied by using both terms in the same sentence without hesitation. Not one of them corrected me for misusing the word “flooded.” To further test my hypothesis, I attended various water-damage restoration schools across the U.S. and U.K., where I found school educators and students using these terms interchangeably and without objection.