Hurricane Irene won't come close to reviving the wind vs. waterdebate that occupied the court systems of Mississippi and Louisianafor years following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in2005.

The wind vs. water debate and the mind-bending, tongue-tying“anti-concurrent causation clause” language within insurancepolicies will not be an issue.

Not by a long shot.

Flood, including storm surge, is not covered by a standardhomeowners policy. Moreover, multiple forces cannot combine tocause the exact same loss. This is what the anti-concurrentcausation clause debate was about. During Katrina, two events—windand then surge—caused two different losses. But the debate afterKatrina was a heck of a lot more complicated than that because allthat was left of many, many homes was a concrete slab.

I covered these debates and court battles while at anotherpublication and the only thing I know is that I don't knoweverything (but I learned a boatload from attorney David Rossmiller. His blogs were a life preserver when I wasdrowning in flood litigation.).

Court cases were intense and fought on multiple fronts,with a see-saw of positive and negative rulings, depending onthe eyes you were looking through.

It was easy to side with homeowners who lost everything. Butpolicy language—and insurers—eventually came out on top, even whenlawyers tried to say levees didn't count because they wereman-made.

“We're sorry. Flooding is not covered.” OK, I added the“We're sorry.” By the end of the courtroom fight(s) enough feelingswere hurt, enough pockets were emptied to lawyers and enoughemotions were drained that apologies weren't going to cut it anyway(Not to mention, one famous plaintiffs' attorney{coughing…Scruggs!} landed himself in the clink. Now that was funto cover, even from New Jersey!).

The point here is that any talk about lawyers expecting disputesover wind vs. water is just that—talk…probably from plaintiffs'attorneys. The case law is plentiful.

As George Simpson, an attorney with North Carolina's CranfillSumner & Hartzog, tells me, “It would be hard to imagine anyoneopening a Pandora's Box of issues that haven't already beenaddressed ad nauseum.”

Remember Hurricane Ike in 2008? I recall seeing before-and-afterpictures of homes in Galveston, Texas and only the stilts they werebuilt on after the hurricane blew through. I don't remember anywind vs. water litigation.

Flooded homes in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, NorthCarolina or Vermont are still standing. Water lines are evident. Sois the lack of damage from wind. “Hurricane Irene wasn't a windevent. It was a flooding event.” These lines have been utteredrepeatedly by the insurance industry, weather experts and electedofficials since Irene.

“This event is much more clear-cut; it's clear what caused theloss,” Simpson adds.

If you didn't have flood insurance, the cost to repair your homeis coming out of your pocket.

And that stinks. I'd never deny that, or the sympathy I have formany people whose homes were flooded.

Homeowners that live in a flood plain probably have a federalflood policy. They do if they have a mortgage.

Homeowners outside flood plains probably don't have apolicy.

I don't know how many homes Irene flooded fall into thiscategory, but more and more people who aren't forced to get floodinsurance seem to be in the middle of floods. I hope there isfederal assistance for these people, but I hope more of them alsoconsider flood insurance…from a seriously-in-debt federal programthat is scheduled to expire Sept. 30 (Yeah, that's a differentstory.).

Stop with talk about wind vs. water litigation. Maybe there willbe several lawsuits. But they aren't going anywhere.

Let's keep the litigation to good 'ol traditional coveragedisputes over reimbursement amounts, shall we?