The provision is the Consumer Option for an Alternative System to Allocate Losses Act of 2011, or COASTAL Act, S. 1091, introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

The legislation looks to address the controversial wind-versus-water issue by creating a "standardized loss-allocation" system to distribute losses between the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and private or residual-market-provided wind insurance following the total loss of any property that carries both flood and wind insurance.

The leadership of the Senate Banking Committee has agreed to support the amendment.

Rossmiller, who advised both industry and plaintiff's lawyers in the extensive litigation prompted by losses from hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, says the  amendment gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to establish a standard mathematical formula to "determine and allocate wind losses and flood losses for indeterminate claims," meaning slab claims.

"Basically, the way I read this, it just makes the federal government, rather than insurance companies, the adjuster of first instance for slabbed buildings," Rossmiller offers.

"It's an 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you' kind of amendment," he adds. "That may give some people comfort, but I'm not one of them."

Action on the Senate floor has been held up while the staff and members of the committee determine how to deal with the proposed amendment.

Because of that, congressional staffers and lobbyists say that legislation extending the current NFIP for a short period will likely be placed on the Senate calendar for action as early as next week.

Time is of the essence because the current extension runs out Sept. 30.

 The bill passed by the Senate panel is somewhat different than legislation passed by the House in July.

But nothing in either the House or Senate bill is as controversial as the wind-versus-water issue.

Wicker says his bill will help determine wind-versus-water claims and provide greater certainty to homeowners and the insurance market, "ensuring certain losses from future storms are settled in a timely and equitable manner."

John Sneed, president of BancorpSouth Insurance Services in Biloxi, Miss., argues that the amendment is a "win-win for consumers, the insurance industry, and the federal government."

He says, "Once the insurance companies realize how useful this methodology is, I think there will be a paradigm shift in the appetite for more coastal business. The key is requiring the purchase of flood insurance for every risk."

While some parts of the personal lines industry are supportive of the provision, others oppose it.

Rossmiller says that in some ways, the amendment seems more insurer-friendly than policyholder-friendly, even though it is billed the opposite way.

He said the provision does not allow any judicial review of the formula that gets created for each storm, which seems to take away the judge's duties to determine the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence.

"I wonder also if it takes away some fact-finding ability from juries," Rossmiller says. "If I was representing an insurance company in a slab hurricane case, I might look at this amendment and wonder, 'Hey, this might be a good thing—the government does the work and they're the bad guys, not us.'"

Insurance agents will probably like the provision because "it gets them out of the middle of the most controversial stuff," adds Rossmiller.

Though nothing in the bill appears to change policy limits, terms could be up for debate.

"I think we'll see some fights over that, with plaintiff's lawyers searching the language looking for something that pre-empts policy language or state law," Rossmiller predicts.

"I don't see anything in the amendment that jumps out at me as doing so, but you give lawyers enough time and self-interest, and they'll come up with an argument," he adds.