A Case of Semantics

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.

To some insurance adjusters, if you describe a building as being flooded, that means the building has to have flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in order to be covered. That means a water-damaged building that is flood damaged because of an interior pipe or an exterior roof failure is not “flooded” or “flood damaged” under the strict use of insurance terms. Confused? Wait, it only gets better.

Insurers, including Liberty Mutual via their web site, “[do] not cover flood damage. And not having flood insurance is like leaving the house without your umbrella — you could get caught in the rain. Think you are safe from floods? Floods are caused by storms, hurricanes, and even melting snow. Thankfully, as long as your community participates in the NFIP, flood insurance is easily obtained. And even better, flood insurance is affordable — average yearly premiums are $300.”

The water damage restorer, project supervisor, or estimator should not be overwhelmed by the dilemma of explaining and using flood terms properly. It is industry consensus and acceptable for a water-damage remediation technician or restorer to refer to water-damaged buildings as “flooded,” whether or not the flood occurred from within or outside the building. In other words, the words “flood” and “flooded” are commonly used terms that are acceptable by the general public, restorers, and insurance adjusters when describing a water event. However, do not be surprised when a property adjuster asks for the report to be rewritten to establish the true facts: “Take out the word 'flooded' from your report and just call the event leading up to the water damage as a roof leak or break in a pipe, because we do not cover floods under this policy. And besides, a flood did not occur.” Don't argue, just change the report. At least now you know the reason behind the request.

Patrick Moffett is an environmental and industrial hygienist with Environmental Management & Engineering, Inc. He is a licensed general contractor and a registered EPA environmental assessor. He may be reached at 714-379-1096, patmoffett@att.net.