I mean. Technically it should mostly keep out the silt/mud/dirt and possibly keep doors/windows from breaking but I don't think your insurance company is going to agree with you intentionally flooding the place to "keep out the flood" even if it is viable to keep the repair and recovery costs down.
I don't think the recovery costs would differ much though.. flooding causes damage to wood/flooring and mold, dirty or not..
What you end up doing here is screw yourself out of an insurance claim. Insurance has no obligation to cover intentional flooding and you could even be charged with insurance fraud. As obsurd or unbelievable/unrealistic as it may seem, insurance could claim that the damage may not have been incurred if it wasn't for the intentional act.
The company is going to look for any reason to deny your claim whether your intentions were good or not.
Unless you can absolutely prevent any/all damage.. Just let mother nature do her thing and hope for the best.
Yeah, that is kind of what I was getting at.
The insurance company is going to come back and say "yeah, but the water damage was done by you, not the flood" even though the flood would have caused the water damage.
They don't care about it MAYBE being faster/easier to clean up. They care about "can we deny this claim for any reason at all". I think you gave them a really easy reason to be like "lol get fucked dude, we are not paying".
(post is archived)