Wind, Surge, and a Client Who Wants One Number

Allocate by peril, per component, on documented evidence - not by what maximizes recovery:

• Wind/rain scope (HO-3): roof covering and decking breached by wind, and the interior damage traceable to rain entering through that opening. Rain damage following a wind-created opening is the classic ensuing-loss argument and should be scoped separately from surge.
• Surge scope (NFIP): items contacted by salt water, contents below the waterline, and interior finishes where surge was the moving force.
• Evidence: engineer's causation report with moisture readings and water-line photographs, high-water-mark or surge-depth data for the address, dated photo log, separate line-item estimates per peril, and a written matrix mapping each room and each line item to a cause.

Two disciplines matter. First, no double recovery - the same square of drywall cannot be billed to both carriers. Second, no cross-policy offsetting games; each carrier owes its own peril's damage, and the insured is not made whole twice.

Also flag the 1962 construction: ordinance-or-law coverage is capped at 10% and only responds to code-required upgrades triggered by the covered damage, not to a voluntary remodel.

You decline, in writing.

• Presenting a claim you know to be inflated or misattributed is a false or misleading claim statement under Florida's insurance fraud statute, and it is an unfair trade practice and a violation of the public adjuster code of ethics regardless of whether the carrier catches it.
• Your license is the asset at risk; the fee on one claim is not worth it. Discipline, restitution, and potential criminal exposure all live here.
• Practical steps: explain the allocation and why the surge portion will not survive scrutiny anyway; document the conversation; confirm the refusal in a short letter or email; and if the insured insists on a misrepresentation, withdraw from the representation and notify the carrier that you no longer represent the insured, without disclosing privileged claim details.
• Offer the legitimate path instead: a well-documented wind claim plus a properly presented NFIP claim usually nets more than a fabricated single-peril claim, and it survives examination under oath.

A $0 payment is defensible only if the anti-concurrent-causation language actually bars the wind portion - and that is a coverage question, not an amount-of-loss question.

• Read the clause literally. ACC wording typically excludes loss caused by an excluded peril 'regardless of the sequence of events' and whether the excluded peril acts concurrently. If the clause is enforced as written, the wind-and-rain portion may still be payable where wind damage is genuinely separable and independently sufficient.
• Demand the carrier's written coverage position with the specific policy language relied on. A one-line 'flood' denial does not meet that bar and is itself worth documenting.
• Separate your two tracks: amount of loss disputes go to appraisal (the panel sets the number, not coverage); coverage disputes go to the carrier's appeal process, DFS mediation if the claim is within the program's scope, or the insured's attorney for a declaratory route.
• Keep the NFIP claim moving in parallel - the proof-of-loss deadlines on the flood side are unforgiving and independent of the HO-3 fight.