Coverage disputes between property owners and insurance companies began to spring up with frequency not long after the extensive damage stemming from Hurricane Katrina became apparent. As this book went to press in 2005, the attorneys general of Mississippi and Louisiana were considering initiating litigation in which they would seek a declaration that typical property insurance policies' coverage of wind damage would cover a broad range of Katrina-related losses, including those directly related to post-hurricane flooding. As you read this chapter, consider the hurricane aftermath and think about the following questions:

• If wind is a typical covered peril in property insurance policies, how is it possible that losses stemming from Hurricane Katrina might not be covered under such policies?
• Is there a typical exclusion from coverage that property insurers could credibly argue as a basis for denying coverage of certain Katrina-connected losses?
• Why might a policyholder whose home or building was flattened by the powerful storm be in a stronger position to collect under her insurance policy than, say, a New Orleans insured whose home was destroyed or rendered uninhabitable by the flooding that engulfed the city when the powerful hurricane caused the city's levee system to fail?

• What is the nature of the relationship between an insurer and the insured? Is it collaborative, adversarial, or some of each?
• What legal obligations does an insurer owe to an insured? Do ethical obligations also attend the insurer-insured relationship?
• When a disaster of Hurricane Katrina's magnitude strikes, should the terms of an insurance policy be interpreted any differently from how they would have been interpreted in the event of more ordinary losses?
• What role do courts play in resolving insurance policy disputes?
• Should legislatures and government agencies regulate the terms of insurance policies, or should the content of policies be left to the market?