Was State Farm–its longtime advertising claims to the contrary–not a good neighbor when it came to dealing with the multitude of Hurricane Katrina claims in Mississippi? Did this really have to end up in court? Or should the carrier have been more proactive and flexible in adjusting claims where the source of normally excluded water-related damage was less than clear?

I've been hearing grumbling within the industry that while the assault on the standard flood exclusion is alarming, State Farm practically invited legal challenges and public scorn by the way it adjusted those claims and stiff-armed the unfortunate homeowners affected. The result was another body blow to the industry's already tarnished reputation–a problem that reverberates far and wide through onerous state and federal legislative initiatives.

I got an earful from one major insurance industry official in an e-mail following the announcement of the Katrina settlement (still a work in progress, with the judge on the case rejecting the first agreement–see yesterday's blog entry). This individual–clearly frustrated by the response of carriers to wind-driven, water-related claims–complained about how much better insurers could have handled such disputes and perhaps not only have avoided the lawsuits and horrible publicity that followed, but set the stage for improved relations with regulators and the public going forward.