On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina came barreling into the Gulfcoast, bringing with it terms like anti-concurrent causation, windversus water, and a host of other issues. As we get a clearerpicture of the damage caused by Hurricane Irene, it's possible thatthe industry will face similar issues that arose with Katrina sixyears ago.

Looking at photos and reading damage assessment reports causedby Irene, I understand why some believe that many of the insuranceissues related to Katrina and its wind-versus-water discussion are likely to result in a sequelof sorts. However, like most movie sequels, this one lacks thetenacity and originality of the first—and might go straight toDVD.

While Katrina brought a massive storm surge of 24-28 feet—thehighest ever recorded from a hurricane—Irene mustered justthree-to-five feet along its entire path through the mid-Atlanticand Northeast, according to Risk Management Services. And whileKatrina brought wind speeds of 111-130mph at landfall, it appearsthat Irene topped out at 85mph winds in North Carolina, and 75mphin New England states. In many areas, wind speeds were closer to60mph.

But as Annie Lennox once sang, here comes the rain.

Irene was a camel of a storm, holding massive amounts of waterin its broad hurricane hump. It's estimated that parts of NewJersey were hit with 10 inches of rain, while areas in Virginiareceived 16 inches, North Carolina 13, and Delaware 10 inches.Worst affected appears to be Vermont, which only received anaverage of seven inches across the state but faces significantinfrastructure damages due to the flooding.

Agents and claims professionals, you know what that means: Getyour policy-explanation hats on because the wind-versus-water“villain” is about to rise from the dead.

Though it certainly will be less of an issue than with Katrina,there is no doubt that there will be instances of concurrent damagefrom wind and flooding. What makes Irene different is that housesaren't likely to have been completely swept off their foundationsas they were in Katrina, leaving loss causes difficult toascertain.

But we all know the scenario when there is a clear delineationof wind and water damage. An adjuster tells an insured that hisroof damage is covered, but his lower-level flooding isn't. “See, right here in your policy exclusions.” the adjuster will say.“Flooding isn't a covered loss.”

Once again, we'll hear from a vast section of the populationthat still doesn't realize that flooding is an uncovered loss inmost homeowners' policies. The outrage will manifest, and insurerswill face the withering scrutiny of having to defend state-approvedpolicy language amidst a firing squad of Facebookers, Tweeters, andconsumer organizations who are bound to criticize the industry for“trickylanguage” and “ impossible to read” policies.

Gird yourselves for the inevitable, prepare for the “reviews,”and hope the credits come quickly.