Wind or water? That&8217;s the question on the minds of insurance claims agents picking through the mess left nearly a year ago when Hurricane Katrina scoured the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

No sooner than the wind and rain of the hurricane subsided, homeowners were faced with a sobering fact: our insurance isn&8217;t going to fix this.

People whose houses were crushed by Katrina had their hopes deflated when they learned that their homeowner&8217;s policies would not cover damage caused by the storm&8217;s storm surge, which is considered floodwaters.

Many of those people went to court, hoping to find some justice in the courts.

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that a Pascagoula couple was not entitled to a settlement because their insurance policy didn&8217;t cover wind-driven water damage. Their house was destroyed mostly by the powerful storm surge, not the wind, damage of which ironically would have been covered.

The case was among the first rulings on the matter and one that brought much attention from hopeful storm victims all across the Gulf Coast.

Many residents are left pondering the proverbial chicken and the egg routine. Which came first, the wind or the water? And why does it really matter?

The more important question is: &8220;Justice or injustice?&8221;