A Louisiana judge is going to be asked to combine meteorology with contract law when the first homeowner’s lawsuit against an insurance company goes to trial this week. Police lieutenant Paul Leonard had taken out homeowner’s insurance long before Katrina pulverized his house, but it was of little consolation when his insurance company blamed the damage on water, not wind. Leonard has sued and his action will be the first legal test for insurers who claim their policies don’t cover floods. They contend that Katrina’s storm surge was water pushed by the force of the wind.

Leonard and his wife, Julie claim Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. denied their claim without thoroughly investigating the damage to their house, which is several hundred yards from the Mississippi Sound. The Leonards purchased their policy more than a decade ago, when – they claim – that their insurance agent had assured them that they didn’t need to buy flood insurance for their home because their policy would cover all hurricane damage.

Misrepresentation by an insurance agent is a common issue in courtrooms. The delineation between flood insurance, which is usually separate coverage, and windstorm insurance, which is a common component of homeowner’s coverage, it what’s at play here. Was Katrina a windstorm that happened to push water around, or was the home damage the result of the storm plus additional factors such as location, making the high water a non-insured catastrophe? Stay tuned…