Last month, a reader notified me in a clear and succinct way what he thought about one of our headlines: “You're an idiot,” he wrote. I felt like asking him what he really thought, but the man didn't seem to be in the mood to joke. Besides, if you work in this industry you have to expect to encounter a few ESTJs on the Myers-Briggs personality indicator who are willing to voice their opinions. It's part of what I love and appreciate about this fiery and passionate industry.

The reason for his declaration, you ask? He took umbrage with a headline we wrote for our weekly Claims e-News while summarizing Gustav's impact: “Gustav Bad, Could Have Been Worse.” To be fair, he was writing from a part of Louisiana that took the brunt of Hurricane Gustav — an area that as of late September still had flood waters that had yet to recede. So it's fair to assume the man was dealing with a catastrophic situation, both personally and professionally (he also works in an insurance-related field).

Agree with it or not, though, the headline spoke the truth from an insurance perspective. Despite heavy coastal losses and obscene amounts of damage, no levees were breached. Thousands evacuated in an orderly fashion. A direct hit on New Orleans never occurred. Insurers and adjusters were prepared, and catastrophe programs implemented after Katrina seemed to perform as promised. Yes, it represented a devastating natural disaster that will reach the billion-dollar mark and has overwhelmed thousands of people. All in all, though, initial estimates indicate that in terms of insured losses, it will pale in comparison to Katrina. I'm not proposing that this should assuage those who suffered personal losses or should be cause for celebration; I'm only saying that from a broad perspective, we have seen worse.