is not excluded by excess policy's flood exclusion.

In the Insurance Coverage Law Blog (located here), the author David Rossmiller reviews the August 16 decision in Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co.,  lawsuit.  

It appears that the decision was at least in part based on the lack of the phrase "whether driven by wind or not,"   

Some good reading if you get a chance check it out.

I have seen several layers  of cover that have the language in the upper layers that the amount of cover is the "same as the underlying first layer". I am trying to think what was the intent of the upper layer(s) not being as broad as the underlying?

** Reread the article and did not take into account the SIR between 100  to 500 million. This opine may stand.

It presents a good argument for form following excess policies.