What is the intended definition of "the presence of water"?

It appears the insurance company is interpreting that once the presence of water (that caused covered damages) extends into a period that qualifies as "weeks, months or years", then all damages caused by that water are now considered excluded. we do not think this is the proper interpretation of the policy.

We would like your interpretation of the following policy language, specifically concerning the phrase "the presence of water". We would also like your opinion of the following scenario. Given the information below, and barring any extra applicable exclusions, should coverage for the water damages be afforded?