Lawyers for the insurance company had a 'watertight' defense:
"We certainly feel for the owners of the Ark. However, since the plaintiff could not produce 'two witnesses' to prove that the rain had caused a landslide and indeed 'molested' the road leading up to the Ark, we are unable to provide monetary compensation. Our hearts go out to all our clients that have been affected by rain and we 'abhor' any damage that rain may cause. Because of the confidential nature of our conversation between the Ark owners and our insurance agents we must claim 'client confidentiality' and will not produce any documents relating to our handling of this and other rain damage cases. The insuring agent is a private contractor and sells insurance for our company on a voluntary basis and in no way represents the parent company in a fiduciary nature. We ask that the court dismiss this case without prejudice."