Assuming it does. What's the deal with insurance companies. Can they even afford another one.
I'm sure they'll be all right.   They've been dumping the high-risk customers for awhile now.

Risky Business

With $58 billion in claims to pay for last year alone, U.S. insurers are jacking rates, canceling policies, and learning to cope with climate change.

...In 18 states, from southern Texas to the northern tip of Maine, insurance companies are scrambling to reduce the risk of major hurricane-related payouts. The upshot: For the 43% of the U.S. population who live and do business in these states, rates are likely to rise between 20% and 100% over the next year, according to the Insurance Information Institute. (In the rest of the country, premiums are expected to rise about 4%.)

The insurance industry does not officially believe in global warming, but they do accept that the climate is changing.

A changing climate shakes the industry

Says Allstate CEO Edward Liddy: "We are in a period of increased land and sea surface temperatures. When you couple that with more people living along coasts and dramatically increased home values in those areas, that's when you step back and you say, 'Wait a minute. This is not yesterday's game.' "

Publicly, insurers have not accepted the theory of global warming, which says that the accumulation of greenhouse gases - in part because of activities like burning fossil fuels - is changing weather patterns. What the industry does believe is that, for whatever reason, weather isn't what it used to be.

HAS ANYONE SEEN THIS?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/state_farm_insi.html

Exclusive: Whistleblowers Say State Farm Shredded Documents to Avoid Paying Katrina Victims, Allegations of Massive Fraud

Social collapse first maybe?  Thousands of people are pissed!  Now they've got PROOF!  Bring em down...

i am not surprised. it was probably either shred them or go bankrupt.
Bankrupt em in court.  We need a flippin reset button.
Aren't they making record profits though?
Not sure, I know they are MIGHTY healthy in face of the hurricanes and this would explain why.  I bet the aggregate numbers would astonish all of us.  I think they are paying less than 25% of their claims.
insurance company's run basically like a casino.
they are placing there bets that the monthly fee's from the insured will vastly outnumber the amount of claims they do have to pay out when stuff happens.
the big sign post that tells people that they actually lost the bet with Katrina is that they are trying to find ways no matter how minor to deny people their insurance payouts.
They don't just rely on fees...they actually invest the fee money as well.
still their entire model is based on betting their income will always be bigger then what they have to pay out.
the damage done by Katrina would do any one insurance company in so they are franticly trying to minimize their lost income by shredding and denying claims.
With some limited exceptions, the performance of major, NAME BRAND insurance companies has been shameful after Katrina.

Uncontested claims, where the homeowner was willing to just take the adjusters estimate, went many months before payout.  Local theory was that they had to liquidate real estate / other investments and just did not have the $$$.

Allstate & State Farm did NOT do right by many of their policy holders.  Others kept a tally of the few good and many bad insurance companies.

I don't suppose you have a link to that list of good companies?  I'm in Alabama an have state farm.

On the other hand don't insurance regulations vary greatly state by state.  Is it really that state farm was so bad, or is it that the state government was lax in making an enforcing regulations.

So much for the "Like a good neighbor..." and "You're in good hands" advertising jingles, eh?
These are corporations -- amoral, profit-maximizing machines that will do almost anything for a buck. The people who run them are legally bound to run as many risks as possible to make a profit.

Remember the Pinto and how Ford calculated it would be cheaper to settle lawsuits than recall the car and therein save lives?

Enron. WorldComm. And now maybe State Farm. When do exceptions become the rule?

Actually, Ford made the calculation that it would be cheaper to pay a few death claims than put a very cheap (<$25) fix in the Pinto. The US courts rightly reminded Ford that we don't allow them to do this kind of "cost-benefit analysis."
they were only unlucky enough to get caught.
Ah, but they had to be punished by the court system to be reminded of this, no? Only threat of punishment, not moral considerations, led to Ford correcting its behavior.

This is normal behavior for the corporation. Only the relatively sure threat of costly punishment leads to what we would call 'good' behavior.

Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Corp. is prominent in re-insurance and catastrophe insurance, seemed to have played this well. He raised rates to reflect last year's risks, and so far the bet seems to be paying off on a less active hurricane season. Berkshire has reported strong results in the last two quarters; its Class A stock is trading at all-time highs of about $96,300 per share.

Last year Berkshire was profitable overall despite a $2 billion hurricane-related re-insurance/ catastrophe insurance payout. Buffett is clearly hoping to make money on the catastrophe lines this year, with prices high enough to cover at least some payouts before having to draw on other funds. It could work unless there is another huge disaster like Katrina.

So did Buffett pay out all HIS legally binding Katrina claims?