Catching up on emails in the San Diego sun during a cancelled appointment at WSIA this week, it was difficult to dismiss the sense of déjà vu.
Five years earlier and just up the coast at Dana Point, another industry event took place against the backdrop of a catastrophic loss.
Then it was Sandy, and at PCI there was a surreal atmosphere as the depleted contingent of delegates that had made it to California switched between concerned phone calls with family in the Northeast and the task of tracking exposures amid a developing catastrophe that surprised everyone with its devastating flooding.
Ultimately Sandy proved to be a complicated and hard-to-untangle loss event that wasn't big enough to change the dynamics of an overcapitalised P&C industry, but which stung earnings and delivered a short-lived US property hardening and tightening of underwriting around flood risk.
At the inaugural WSIA Annual Marketplace following the merger of Napslo and the AAMGA earlier this year, numbers were also down this week by an estimated 25 percent.
That was still a strong showing, given the scenes of devastation from Irma in Florida and Harvey in Texas - two bedrocks of the E&S market that are home to a significant number of WSIA members.
And with Irma making landfall in the US as the conference began, for many it was too early to get a real sense of what the event would mean for dynamics in the E&S space.
The storm's late track shift meant that instead of discussing the Big One and an instant hard market, underwriters and brokers were left unable to argue a clear case either way.
There was a consensus that Irma and Harvey would be complicated slow-developing losses that deliver a significant hit to the E&S market - even if estimates from cat modelling firms are set in a wide range.
There was also agreement that Lloyd's will be at the front of the firing line, with double exposure from its heavy presence on Caribbean risks and role as a leading supporter of coastal cat-exposed binder business in the US, including a habitational sector that is expected to be heavily impacted.
That led to much discussion about which of the large wind-focused MGAs, such as Amrisc and Velocity, would be most exposed on Florida's west coast, and how some of the smaller coverholders that rely on profit sharing would weather the storm.
Brokers and underwriters were also unified in recognising the challenges in determining the exposure and market impact of both events because of the inconsistent approach to flood coverage in commercial property policies and the fallibility of flood maps and modelling.
The myriad of policy forms and their use of flood sub-limits, deductibles and characterisation of storm surge under wind or flood coverage has created a confusing picture for anyone trying to get to grips with an industry loss figure.
Combine that with a potential grey area around the hours definition of occurrence and many in the market expect a welter of disputes and litigation.
But while there was agreement over most of the likely issues that would follow the storms, views on the impact for US property pricing were skewed.
Some brokers polled by this publication were happy to acknowledge that a market correction - at least in property cat - is due, given the paper-thin margins that were already in place.
That prediction naturally found favour with many underwriters. But others were sceptical, and said that without meaningful hardening of reinsurance rates, property insurers would be "enabled" to continue their soft market behaviour.
And while some brokers said they would resist price increases, others on both sides of the divide noted that many underwriters, retailers and wholesalers on the front line have not had the experience of a major industry catastrophe loss to test their resolve.
There was a broad consensus that if prices do not adjust flood coverage terms would significantly tighten, however. There will also be a push for more consistent treatment of the flood peril, and where storm surge should sit on the policy form.
Indeed, with many flood-struck commercial insureds at risk of exhausting sub-limits from two events, there was much talk of the E&S market stepping in to fill gaps by offering reinstatements and innovating with new products.
It was also suggested that pain suffered by admitted markets from the events could see a degree of retrenchment from some more challenging areas of the property market, allowing E&S writers to step back in to their home territory.
That, after all, is the purpose of the surplus lines sector and is how it has made its name. Often, it is after the loss that the E&S market comes into its own.