I heard last night that there was a Florida case after Andrew which may be helpful to those who totally lost their homes. It seems to hold that if the policy could have covered the destruction of the home and there is evidence of strong winds, the insurance has to cover it. I suppose it basically places the burden on the insurer to show that a loss was due to surge. Also there is the Miss. Burns case for those who have both wind and water damage, which holds that it will be up to the jury as to which is the efficient cause of a particular damage. Another, theory that will help homeowners is the ''reasonable expectation'' test. It will require the insurer to pay for flooding if a reasonable policy holder would have expected hurricane surge protection to be in the policy in view of the hurricane deductible. However, the court will first have to determine that the policy was ambiguous. Lastly, for those who are entitled to the value of their homes, I heard that the value should be measured as of the time just prior to the hurricane, not the fair market value of similar homes in the area after the storm. Hope this helps.