Sen. Lott is suing State Farm over the insurer's decision to declare part of the damage from his house on the Mississippi Gulf Coast as partly flood-related and therefore not covered by his insurance.

He also has vowed to introduce legislation in the next Congress that will repeal the antitrust exemption component of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the lynchpin of the current, state-based regulation of the industry.

Only one insurance lobbyist, John Jonas, would be quoted by name; many property-casualty sector representatives would not, concerned any comment might be taken amiss by Sen. Lott.

Mr. Jonas, a senior partner at Patton Boggs, said that Sen. Lott would have to moderate his anger at the industry.

“In the end, Republicans, like Democrats, must show some civility, some legislative accomplishments,” Mr. Jonas said. “Going into a death crouch isn't going to work.”

Another lobbyist said, “For the property-casualty insurance industry and State Farm in particular, the election of Trent Lott is adding insult to injury after the Republicans, who they overwhelmingly support, lost both Houses of Congress to the Democrats,” said one.

He added, “He has them in his crosshairs and will make their lives miserable and will use his leadership position to thwart their legislative agenda. Bye-bye, McCarran-Ferguson!”

Another industry representative said, “[Sen.] Lott's McCarran bill is predicated on the view that McCarran is the holy grail of the industry, and this would hurt us.”

The lobbyist added that Sen. Lott is taking the same approach articulated by Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., another congressman suing the industry as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

“Remember, he had very little enthusiasm for the original Terrorism Risk Insurance Act when he was majority leader, although he ultimately voted for it,” the lobbyist said. “He hates us, State Farm most of all.”

American Council of Life Insurers spokesman Whit Cornman said the group hopes any legislation dealing with McCarran-Ferguson is undertaken in the context of the Optional Federal Charter, which it supports.

“A discussion of McCarran-Ferguson belongs as part of any overall optional federal charter debate,” he said. “If Congress is going to consider McCarran-Ferguson, it should do so as part of the broader discussion of an optional federal charter and insurance modernization, and not as an isolated matter.”