Day In Court For Katrina Insurance Case

"If Hitler didn't kill you, Katrina wasn't going to kill you either." Ninety-two year old Joseph Sher talks about surviving the holocaust, surviving Hurricane Katrina, and now surviving a fight with his insurance company.

"You still can see the water was this high," he said.

The levee breaches on the day after the storm flooded Sher's basement with four feet of water, reports Hari Sreenivasan.

He had almost $270,000 worth of damage. Sher's insurance company gave him less than $3,000.

Sher's case being argued before the state Supreme Court is being watched by hundreds of thousands of people who have not recouped damages from their insurance companies post-Katrina.

Insurers argue that they are not responsible for covering any flood damage.

"It should not make a difference what caused the flood no more than it makes a difference in what causes a fire," said Howard Kaplan, a lawyer for Lafayette Insurance.

But Sher's lawyers argue that man-made disasters, such as a breach of levees, should be covered.

"You buy a homeowners policy, you pay a premium for it, you've got an expectation that if there's a catastrophic man-made failure to levees its covered," said Sher's attorney, James Garner.

Ed Sherman, a former Dean at Tulane Law, says the outcome of this case will have a huge ripple effect.

"We're talking in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, when its all added up, and tens if not hundred thousand people," Sherman said.

People could be affected by a second case up for review. The court also heard arguments in the wind versus water controversy.

Homeowners who lost everything may stand to gain if the court decides whether wind or water, they should have been covered.