In February 2008, the Washington State Department of Transportation diverted snowmelt through trenches located in the vicinity of Northwest Bedding Company’s facilities. The water overflowed the trenches, inundated Northwest’s building, and damaged the building and surrounding property. Northwest filed a claim with its insurer, National Fire Insurance Company. Northwest maintained an all-risk commercial-property policy and commercial general liability policy with National Fire. National Fire denied coverage and claimed that the damage was due to surface water flowage and flooding, which were excluded from coverage. Northwest sued National Fire for damages and a judicial declaration that the loss was covered. Northwest claimed that the loss was covered because the water was channeled onto its property through actions of a third party rather than an act of nature. National Fire claimed that the reason for the water on the property was irrelevant. Rather, the loss was caused by surface water and flooding, which were clearly excluded from coverage. Is the reason for the presence of water on the property relevant, or is the mere presence of the water sufficient to support a denial of coverage?