Thus, when the insureds suffered direct physical loss within standard flood insurance policy when the floor structure was compromised causing building to list noticeably and rendering it unsafe to use. Gallup v. Omaha Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 282 Fed. Appx. 317 (5th Cir. 2008).

Other cases have dealt with the nature and scope of flood exclusions in insurance policies. Courts have enforced the plain language of the clauses rejecting the contention that defective levees or other causes contributed to what occurred.　 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F. 3d 191 (5th Cir 2007).　 The language of the clause is obviously important.　 Homeowners were unable to dispute this clause

we do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following.  Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing 　 concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.. . . Water Damage, meaning, Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind

Frequently the court will construe the policy in favor of the policyholder and resolve ambiguities in his favor.　 However, courts will generally not disturb the plain language of insurance clauses.　　

5. Flood Definition

Under the Code of Federal Regulations 44 CFR, 59.1, "flood" or "flooding" is defined as:

(a) A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from:

(1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters.

(2) The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.

National flood insurance risks and coverage, 81 A.L.R. Fed. 416

One case involves an exclusion for water damage, but the insured purchased hurricane coverage.　 The court first noted that the water damage exclusion would generally be enforced. The exclusions found in the policy for water damage and for damages attributable to flooding are valid and enforceable policy provisions. Indeed, similar policy terms have been enforced with respect to damage caused by high water associated with hurricanes in many reported decisions.　 Buente v. Allstate Insurance Company, 422 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Miss. 2006).　　 However, there the insured specifically purchased hurricane insurance and was told additional flood insurance would not be needed.　

Because this policy carries a specific "Hurricane Deductible Endorsement," it is apparent to me that it was intended to cover damages sustained in a hurricane because of the effects of rain, hurricane winds, and objects that might be carried by those winds, whether or not there was also damage caused by high water. Thus, to the extent Allstate contends that the hurricane itself, i.e. the hurricane winds and rain, would constitute a weather condition that would relieve them of liability for damage to insured property (under Exclusion 21 in Coverages A and B and/or Exclusion 13 in Coverage C), I find that the policy is ambiguous and its weather exclusion therefore unenforceable in the context of losses attributable to wind and rain that occur during a hurricane.　 Buente v. Allstate Insurance Company