seems like a sound business decsion IMHO ... as a state farm customer, i like the fact that they are steering away from additional risks which would likely increase my premiums and possibly lose me as a customer.

if it was truly greedy, i would think state farm would enjoy reaping the windfall of increasing premiums to all its customers by underwriting a high risk region.  considering a storm the magnitude of katrina may be a "once in a lifetime" event ... state farm could make a killing for years to come. 

maybe i'm reading it wrong, but it seems to reflect a sense of decency by not taking advantage of a bad situation ... something most businesses (and politicians) would ignore.

"at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising his/her rights" - me 

IMHO, the only one's mad about this decision are those at the MSM.  Yeah, people in Mississippi were mad at State Farm when they tried weasling out of paying claims after Katrina.  And I can State Farm being mad at the State of Mississippi and its "legal" environment for making them pay up on what was owed.  Don't forget that the Mississippi Gulf coast was home to some of the biggest mass tort lawyers in the country.  The ones that John Grisham writes about in his novels.  Other than that, I don't think you will find one person in the state of Mississippi that is "mad" that State Farm will not write any "new" policies...just my opinion of course.

The issue for insurers in Mississippi and in Florida is that when people buy their coverage, they usually balance risk vs. cost, and cost wins out most of the time.  People are told that the cheapest plans do not cover acts of God like hurricanes, tornados, etc.  They are told that flood damage is not covered.  Lastly they are told that they can get that coverage, but it'll cost a bit more.  Once that last bit of info is provided, customers start thinking about what the odds are that their house will get flooded or destroyed by a storm, and many customers decide they would rather pay smaller premiums since the risk is low.  Then when the big storm hits, and they lose their homes and cars, they try to say they had no idea these types of damages weren't covered... which is BS. 

These folks decided to go cheap and accept the risk, then when it comes time to pay the piper they start crying and want the government to force the insurance companies to fix things that were never covered AND were never covered because the whiner didn't want to pay for the coverage.  Who's not being the Good Neighbor then?

I learned in my Insurance Law course that Mississippi is a lousy legal environment for Insurance companies.  The gentleman that taught the course was an attorney for an insurance company.  According to him, in Mississippi, insurance company attorneys don't even try to win the case, they just try to limit the damage.

Bruzilla made a very valid point: insurance premiums are based on risk.  The more perils insured against, the higher the premium.  Unfortunately, there are (at least) two legal traditions that militate against the insurance companies.  One: the courts have decided that it doesn't matter what the insurance contract says, if the policy holder believes that the contract covers a peril, then the contract covers the peril.  Two: any ambiguity in the contract is decided in the favor of the policyholder.  Now, this was all right when the contracts were written in "legalese".  When the policies were in legalese, every word had a meaning that had been decided in court precedents, and those definitions were understood by the courts.  Then, when policyholders began complaining that the contracts were too hard to read and understand, the insurance companies were forced to write the contracts in "plain English", which introduced a whole new set of ambiguities, the meanings of which would have to be decided all over again in the courts.

I believe that insurance should be like any other contract: the policy holder should have a lawyer look over the proposed contract and tell them what it means.  If the policy holder does not do this, i.e. exercise due diligence, then the contract should mean only what it says, not what the negligent policy holder thinks it should say.  If the policy holder opts for lesser coverage in order to get a more affordable premium, then the court should tell the policy holder that the insurance company is right, they aren't covered.  From all I can tell from the legal situation in Mississippi, State Farm is getting screwed by its policy holders, and by the state.  Not only should State Farm not write any new coverage in Mississippi, they should cancel all policies in Mississippi, and completely pull out of the state.  Other property insurers should follow suit until the State of Mississippi gets the message and eliminates the anti-insurance company bias in their courts.

If the State of Mississippi has to insure their citizens for the perils they insist the insurance companies cover without the proper premiums, it will mean a massive tax increase, which the citizens and businesses won't like.  But, hey!  Everyone will be insured for all perils.  Of course, businesses will leave the state for better tax climates, thereby reducing tax revenues, so the state will have to decide whether to reduce insurance coverage, or raise taxes to keep coverages in place, thus introducing a cycle of businesses leaving and taxes increasing.  Then they can decide to provide single payer health insurance for their citizens, too.

A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Mark,

How long do you think it will be before the economic and business illiterates in the liberal MSM start calling for the Federal Guv'mint to step in and insure the home owners in that area, or any other hurricane/natural disaster-prone location?

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman

The Mississippi legislature is to blame for the business environment there.  State Farm won't be the only one to cut back.  Did the reporter even attempt to understand the business decision?  Did they investigate the massive assessments against insurers?  Did they know they is no limit on how often or how much an insurer can be assessed?  Or that it can far exceed the amount of premium even collected in Mississippi?

This issue is so full of juicy hypocrisy.

For decades...no...make that centuries....Mississippi has loudly bit**ed and moaned about "The Feds". They hated when "The Feds" came down in 1860 and made them stop treating black people like animals. They screamed bloody murder when "The Feds" came down in the 1960’s and put a stop to the Klanner madness. They still make noise about being "rebels" and flying that Confederate flag.

But all of a sudden, Mississippi now wants all sorts of Federal involvement with State Farm. Read this editorial from the Clarion Ledger and you’ll end up laughing your arses off.

Yeah....those tough Mississippi folks really hate those awful Feds!

Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!