"Clearly most if not all of the damage to their homes is from the floods," said William Bailey, who arrived in Jackson, Miss., on Saturday to coordinate efforts for the Hurricane Insurance Information Center, an industry clearinghouse for storm recovery information. (
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12554866.htm )
In other words, the flood removed all of the claims for property damage from the hurricane.
Remember, New Orleans is primarily a wood structured old town, the hurricane had done a wallop of damage. But, because the flood then increased the damage to total...there will be no payments. The argument will be: we do not need to restore your house for hurricane damage because the flood damage would of done it anyway.
How much is at stake? Insurance coverage estimates are now running at $35 billion for Katrina. Total damage estimates to be over $100 billion. Maybe the flood saved $10 Billion in payments to the insurance companies.
This is of course unthinkable. Who could contemplate this crime. But, for that matter, who contemplates any crime... criminals. The main facts to look for are Motive, Means and Opportunity.
The levee leak was avoidable, and actually predictable from the point of 8 hours prior to the storm hittting. When It turned east and you knew the city would be saved from a guaranteed levee breach.
So the motive is there. Was the means there? Yes, simply do not patch a levee break. Now, the big one, Was the opportunity there? Maybe... how well connected is the insurance industry to this Presidential administration. It would only take a well placed connection who could delay ... a mole if you will.
I do think, in light of the incredible nearly criminal negligence on preventing the leak, this awful scenario must be a point of discussion.
Please prove me wrong, start with the motive. Prove that the insurance companies did not benefit by a levee break.