In my latest column in the August AAB, I write about the recent proposal by Travelers and Nationwide to establish a coastal wind coverage plan, hinging on federal legislation (drop by our podcast page at www.agentandbroker.com to hear an interview with Travelers' Eric Nelson on the subject). No sooner was the virtual ink dry on my comments when The Hartford announced its own version of a public-private plan to address natural catastrophes, including a federal backstop for insurers.

Of course, State Farm and Allstate have their own long-standing proposal that includes a call for state and federal cat funds as backstops (see www.protectingamerica.org).

The cool thing about the Travelers proposal is that it has the blessing of both the Big I and the Council, giving it the official thumbs-up for retail agents and brokers.

All this seems to beg the question that was at the heart of the whole Hurricane Katrina fiasco — and that's the differentiation between flood and wind losses on the standard property insurance policy.

Before its affiliation with the Travelers proposal, Nationwide made headlines by proposing an expanded homeowners policy that would include flood coverage at the same price as the National Flood Insurance Program coverages. (Meanwhile, Congress still hasn't reauthorized NFIP, in large part because of the outcry against a House proposal that wind be added to its coverage.)

Assuming your clients own property in a high-risk coastal area, which proposal makes the most sense to you?