More on Mississippi's suit against insurance companies

From this:

If an insurance policy bought by the owner of a home or business says, specifically, that hurricane damage is a covered loss, that should be that.
So says Attorney General Jim Hood, who has named a bevy of insurance companies as defendants in suits filed in federal court.
If the federal government defines an area as flood-prone and offers taxpayer-subsidized insurance policies to owners of property in that area, then owners of property outside the identified flood zone should be compensated if they sustain flood damage.
So says Gov. Haley Barbour, who has been to Washington to see President Bush and to ask, in person, for such relief.
Some dismiss both actions as grandstanding, but they're wrong. People need advocates and Barbour and Hood, one a died-in-the-wool Republican and the other a died-in-the-wool Democrat, are going on the offense for victims of Hurricane Katrina, specifically the nearly 340,000 who have filed insurance claims.
Hood's argument is essentially this: If a policy says it covers hurricane damage, it should cover all hurricane damage including the storm surge of ocean water pushed ashore by high winds or by water overflowing from creeks, rivers and streams pushed out of their banks by a hurricane's downpour.
The insurance industry's response is this: For decades, flood insurance has been a "separate buy" through a taxpayer-subsidized program. Even policies that say they offer hurricane coverage almost always exclude, in writing, water flowing over land and into homes and other buildings. Tacitly, they are saying consumers should have known this or have been savvy enough to figure it out for themselves...