MERCURY GENERAL CORP - Annual Report: 2006 (Form 10-K)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006

Commission File No. 001-12257

MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (323) 937-1060

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

NONE

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes   ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer  x            Accelerated filer  ¨            Non-accelerated filer  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes   ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant at June 30, 2006 was approximately $1,488,000,000 (based upon the closing sales price on the New York Stock Exchange for such date, as reported by the Wall Street Journal).

At February 15, 2007, the Registrant had issued and outstanding an aggregate of 54,670,356 shares of its Common Stock.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Registrant to be held on May 9, 2007 are incorporated herein by reference into Part III hereof.

PART I

Item 1.    Business

General

Mercury General Corporation (“Mercury General”) and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) are engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance in a number of states, principally California. During 2006, private passenger automobile insurance and commercial automobile insurance accounted for 83.9% and 4.6%, respectively, of the Company’s total direct premiums written. The percentage of direct automobile insurance premiums written during 2006 by state was:

The Company also writes homeowners, mechanical breakdown, commercial and dwelling fire, and commercial property insurance. The non-automobile lines of insurance accounted for 11.5% of total direct premiums written in 2006, of which approximately 63.5% was in the homeowners line.

The Company offers automobile policyholders the following types of coverage: bodily injury liability, underinsured and uninsured motorist, personal injury protection, property damage liability, comprehensive, collision and other hazards. The Company’s published maximum limits of liability are, for bodily injury, $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident and, for property damage, $250,000 per accident. Subject to special underwriting approval, the combined policy limits may be as high as $1,000,000 for vehicles written under the Company’s commercial automobile program. However, under the majority of the Company’s automobile policies, the limits of liability are equal to or less than $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident for bodily injury and $50,000 per accident for property damage.

In 2006, all of the Company’s subsidiaries actively writing insurance, except American Mercury Insurance Company (“AMI”), American Mercury Lloyds Insurance Company (“AML”) and Mercury County Mutual Insurance Company (“MCM”), maintained a rating of A+ (Superior) by A.M. Best & Co. (“A.M. Best”). This is the second highest of the fifteen rating categories in the A.M. Best rating system, which range from A++ (Superior) to F (In Liquidation). Each of AMI, AML and MCM, which in total accounted for approximately 9% of the Company’s 2006 net premiums written, maintained an A.M. Best rating of A- (Excellent).

The principal executive offices of Mercury General are located in Los Angeles, California. The home office of its California insurance subsidiaries and the Company’s computer and operations center is located in Brea, California. The Company also owns an office building in Rancho Cucamonga, California, which is used to support the Company’s California operations and future expansions, and office buildings located in St. Petersburg, Florida and in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma which house employees of the Company and several outside tenants. The Company maintains branch offices in a number of locations in California as well as branch offices in Richmond, Virginia; Latham, New York; Bridgewater, New Jersey; Vernon Hills, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; and Austin, Houston and San Antonio, Texas. The Company has approximately 5,100 employees.

Website Access to Information

The internet address for the Company’s website is www.mercuryinsurance.com. The internet address provided in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is not intended to function as a hyperlink and the information on our website is not and should not be considered part of this report and is not incorporated by reference in this document. The Company makes available on its website its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current

2

Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports (the “SEC Reports”) filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to Federal securities laws as soon as reasonably practicable after each SEC Report is filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. In addition, copies of the SEC Reports are available, without charge, upon written request to the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Mercury General Corporation, 4484 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010.

Organization

Mercury General, an insurance holding company, is the parent of Mercury Casualty Company (“MCC”), a California automobile insurer founded in 1961 by George Joseph, the Company’s Chairman of the Board of Directors. Including MCC, Mercury General has eighteen subsidiaries. The Company’s insurance operations are conducted through the following insurance company subsidiaries:

California General Underwriters Insurance Company, Inc.’s only business is to assume all of the risks under policies written by one or more of the above companies covering the Company’s fleet of vehicles. Mercury Select Management Company, Inc. (“MSMC”), a Texas corporation serves as the attorney-in-fact for AML. The Company owns Concord Insurance Services, Inc. (“Concord”), a Texas insurance agency headquartered in Houston, Texas. MCM, a mutual insurance company organized under Chapter 17 of the Texas Insurance Code, is managed and controlled by the Company through a management agreement. The Company also operates two managing general agents, one of which, American Mercury MGA, Inc. (“AMMGA”), manages a portion of the Company’s business in Texas, and the other, Mercury Group, Inc. (“MGI”), manages a portion of the Company’s business in Florida.

Management services are provided to Mercury General’s subsidiaries by Mercury Insurance Services, LLC (“MISLLC”), a subsidiary of MCC. Mercury General and its subsidiaries are referred to collectively as the “Company” unless the context indicates otherwise. Mercury General Corporation individually is referred to as “Mercury General.” All of the subsidiaries as a group, excluding MSMC, AMMGA, MGI, MISLLC and Concord, are referred to as the “Insurance Companies.” The term “California Companies” refers to MCC, MIC and CAIC.

3

Underwriting

The Company sets its own automobile insurance premium rates, subject to rating regulations issued by the Department of Insurance or similar governmental agency of the applicable states (referred to herein as the “DOI”). Automobile insurance rates on voluntary business in California are subject to prior approval by the California DOI. The Company uses its own extensive database to establish rates and classifications. Automobile liability insurers in California are also required to sell insurance to a proportionate number of drivers applying for placement as “assigned risks” based on the insurer’s share of the California automobile casualty insurance market. The California DOI has rating factor regulations in effect that influence the weight the Company ascribes to various classifications of data. See “Regulation—Automobile Insurance Rating Factor Regulations.”

At December 31, 2006, “good drivers” (as defined by the California Insurance Code) accounted for approximately 79% of all voluntary private passenger automobile policies in force in California, while higher risk categories accounted for approximately 21%. The private passenger automobile renewal rate in California (the rate of acceptance of offers to renew) averages approximately 96%. The Company also offers homeowners, commercial property and commercial automobile and mechanical breakdown insurance in California.

In states outside of California, the Company offers standard, non-standard and preferred private passenger automobile insurance. Private passenger automobile policies in force for non-California operations represented approximately 23% of total private passenger automobile policies in force at December 31, 2006. In addition, the Company offers mechanical breakdown insurance in many states outside of California and homeowners insurance in Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, New York, Georgia, and Texas.

Production and Servicing of Business

The Company sells its policies through more than 4,500 independent agents and brokers, of which approximately 1,000 are located in California and approximately 900 in Florida. The remainder are located in Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada and Michigan. Over half of the agents in California have represented the Company for more than ten years. The agents, most of whom also represent one or more competing insurance companies, are independent contractors selected and contracted by the Company.

No agent or broker accounted for more than 2% of direct premiums written except for one broker that produced approximately 13%, 14% and 14% during 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively, of the Company’s direct premiums written.

The Company believes that it compensates its agents and brokers above the industry average. During 2006, total commissions incurred were approximately 17% of net premiums written.

As previously reported, following trial and appeal in Robert Krumme, On Behalf Of The General Public v. Mercury Insurance Company, Mercury Casualty Company, and California Automobile Insurance Company (Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco), the Court issued a modified injunction on July 11, 2005 requiring the Company to compensate brokers at the same rate based on volume of sales, accept applications for insurance from any California licensed broker, remove subjective underwriting requirements from its broker instruction manual, and provide guidelines to be used by its field personnel that specifically identify the standards of broker performance. The Company has implemented changes to its California broker relationships to comply with the Court’s modified injunction. Since the implementation, excluding one broker that produced 13% of the Company’s total direct written premiums in 2006, the Company is doing business in California with fewer than 200 brokers that, in total, write approximately $13 million in direct written premiums annually.

The Company’s advertising budget is allocated among television, newspaper, internet and direct mailing media to provide the best coverage available within targeted media markets. While the majority of these advertising costs

4

are borne by the Company, a portion of these costs are reimbursed by the Company’s independent agents based upon the number of account leads generated by the advertising. The Company believes that its advertising program is important to create brand awareness and to remain competitive in the current insurance climate, and it intends to maintain a similar level of advertising in 2007. During 2006, the Company incurred approximately $33 million in advertising expense. See “Competitive Conditions.”

Claims

Claims operations are conducted by the Company. The claims staff administers all claims and directs all legal and adjustment aspects of the claims process. The Company adjusts most claims without the assistance of outside adjusters.

Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves

The Company maintains reserves for the payment of losses and loss adjustment expenses for both reported and unreported claims. Loss reserves are estimated based upon a case-by-case evaluation of the type of claim involved and the expected development of such claim. The amount of loss reserves and loss adjustment expense reserves for unreported claims are determined on the basis of historical information by line of insurance. Inflation is reflected in the reserving process through analysis of cost trends and reviews of historical reserving results.

The Company’s ultimate liability may be greater or less than stated loss reserves. Reserves are closely monitored and are analyzed quarterly by the Company’s actuarial consultants using current information on reported claims and a variety of statistical techniques. The Company does not discount to a present value that portion of its loss reserves expected to be paid in future periods. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, however, requires the Company to discount loss reserves for Federal income tax purposes.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of beginning and ending reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance deductions, as shown on the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the periods indicated:

5

The increase in the provision for insured events of prior years in 2006 relates largely to the unexpected development of several large extra-contractual claims in the state of Florida and increases in reserve estimates for the bodily injury and personal injury protection coverages in New Jersey.

The decrease in the provision for insured events of prior years in 2005 and 2004 relates largely to a decrease in the estimated inflation rates on earlier accident years on bodily injury coverage for California automobile insurance. Florida was struck by several hurricanes. The pre-tax losses resulting from these hurricanes was approximately $27 million and $22 million in 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The difference between the reserves reported in the Company’s consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and those reported in the statements filed with the DOI in accordance with statutory accounting principles (“SAP”) is shown in the following table:

Under SAP, reserves are stated net of reinsurance recoverable in contrast to GAAP where reserves are stated gross of reinsurance recoverable.

The following table presents the development of loss reserves for the period 1996 through 2006. The top line of the table shows the reserves at the balance sheet date, net of reinsurance recoverable, for each of the indicated years. This amount represents the estimated losses and loss adjustment expenses for claims arising in all prior years that are unpaid at the balance sheet date, including an estimate for losses that had been incurred but not yet reported to the Company. The upper portion of the table shows the cumulative amounts paid as of successive years with respect to that reserve liability. The middle portion of the table shows the re-estimated amount of the previously recorded reserves based on experience as of the end of each succeeding year, including cumulative payments made since the end of the respective year. Estimates change as more information becomes known about the frequency and severity of claims for individual years. The bottom line shows the redundancy (deficiency) that exists when the original reserve estimates are greater (less) than the re-estimated reserves at December 31, 2006.

6

In evaluating the information in the table, it should be noted that each amount includes the effects of all changes in amounts for prior periods. This table does not present accident or policy year development data. Conditions and trends that have affected development of the liability in the past may not necessarily occur in the future. Accordingly, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate future redundancies or deficiencies based on this table.

7

For 2005, the Company had negative development of approximately $20 million on loss and loss adjustment expense reserves which at December 31, 2005 totaled approximately $1,023 million. The majority of the negative development was recognized in the second quarter of 2006. The negative development primarily relates to increases in the Company’s 2005 and prior accident years’ loss estimates for personal automobile insurance in Florida and New Jersey totaling approximately $20 million and $15 million, respectively, offset by positive development of approximately $15 million for business written in California.

For 2003 and 2004, loss redundancies largely relate to lower inflation than originally expected on the bodily injury coverage reserves for the California automobile insurance lines of business. In addition, the Company experienced a reduction in expenditures to outside legal counsel for the defense of personal automobile claims in California. This led to a reduction in the ultimate expense amount expected to be paid out and therefore a redundancy in the reserves established at December 31, 2004 and 2003. The Company believes that many factors could be contributing to the reduction in payments to outside legal counsel. These include cost savings from the usage of more flat fee billing arrangements with outside counsel, faster closure rates of bodily injury liability cases and a decrease in bodily injury claims frequency due to factors such as improvements made in vehicle safety. Partially offsetting these loss redundancies was adverse development in the Florida and New Jersey automobile lines of business.

For years 1998 through 2002, the Company’s previously estimated loss reserves produced deficiencies which were reflected in the following year’s incurred losses. The Company attributes a large portion of the deficiencies to increases in the ultimate liability for bodily injury, physical damage and collision claims over what was originally estimated. The increases in these losses relate to increased severity over what was originally recorded and are the result of inflationary trends in health care costs, auto parts and body shop labor costs.

For 1997, the Company’s previously estimated loss reserves produced a small redundancy indicating that the Company was reasonably accurate in establishing the initial reserve for that year.

For 1996, the Company’s previously estimated loss reserves produced deficiencies. These deficiencies relate to increases in the Company’s ultimate estimates for loss adjustment expenses, which are based principally on the Company’s actual experience. The adverse development on such reserves reflects increases in the legal expenses of defending the Company’s insureds.

Operating Ratios

Loss and Expense Ratios

Loss and underwriting expense ratios are used to interpret the underwriting experience of property and casualty insurance companies. Losses and loss adjustment expenses, on a statutory basis, are stated as a percentage of premiums earned because losses occur over the life of a policy. Underwriting expenses on a statutory basis are stated as a percentage of premiums written rather than premiums earned because most underwriting expenses are incurred when policies are written and are not spread over the policy period. The statutory underwriting profit margin is the extent to which the combined loss and underwriting expense ratios are less than 100%. The Insurance Companies’ loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio, and the private passenger automobile industry combined ratio, on a statutory basis, are shown in the following table. The Insurance Companies’ ratios include lines of insurance other than private passenger automobile. Since these other lines represent only 16% of premiums written, the Company believes its ratios can be compared to the industry ratios included in the following table.

8

(N.A.) Not available.

Under GAAP, the loss ratio is computed in the same manner as under statutory accounting, but the expense ratio is determined by matching underwriting expenses to the period over which net premiums were earned, rather than to the period that net premiums were written. The following table sets forth the Insurance Companies’ loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio determined in accordance with GAAP for the last five years.

Premiums to Surplus Ratio

The following table shows, for the periods indicated, the Insurance Companies’ statutory ratios of net premiums written to policyholders’ surplus. Widely recognized guidelines established by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) indicate that this ratio should be no greater than 3 to 1.

Risk-Based Capital

The NAIC employs a risk-based capital formula for casualty insurance companies that establishes recommended minimum capital requirements for casualty companies. The formula was designed to capture the widely varying elements of risks undertaken by writers of different lines of insurance having differing risk characteristics, as well as writers of similar lines where differences in risk may be related to corporate structure, investment policies, reinsurance arrangements and a number of other factors. Based on the formula adopted by the NAIC, the Company has calculated the risk-based capital requirements of each of the Insurance Companies as of December 31, 2006. Each of the Insurance Companies’ policyholders’ surplus exceeded the highest level of minimum required capital.

Statutory Accounting Principles

The Company’s results are reported in accordance with GAAP, which differ from amounts reported in accordance with SAP as prescribed by insurance regulatory authorities. Specifically, under GAAP:

9

Investments and Investment Results

The Company’s investments are directed by the Company’s Chief Investment Officer under the supervision of the Company’s Board of Directors. The Company follows an investment policy that is regularly reviewed and revised. The Company’s policy emphasizes investment grade, fixed income securities and maximization of after-tax yields and places certain restrictions to limit portfolio concentrations and market exposure. Sales of securities are undertaken, with resulting gains or losses, in order to enhance after-tax yield and keep the portfolio in line with current market conditions. Tax considerations, including the impact of the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”), are important in portfolio management. Changes in loss experience, growth rates and profitability produce significant changes in the Company’s exposure to AMT liability, requiring appropriate shifts in the investment asset mix between taxable bonds, tax-exempt bonds and equities in order to maximize after-tax yield.

The following table sets forth the composition of the investment portfolio of the Company at the dates indicated:

The Company continually evaluates the recoverability of its investment holdings. When a decline in value of fixed maturities or equity securities is considered other than temporary, the Company writes the security down to

10

fair value by recognizing a loss in the consolidated statement of income. Declines in value considered to be temporary are charged as unrealized losses to shareholders’ equity as a reduction of accumulated other comprehensive income. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources,” and “Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

At year-end, approximately 66% of the Company’s total investment portfolio, at market values, and 79% of its total fixed maturity investments, at market values, were invested in investment grade tax-exempt revenue and municipal bonds. Shorter duration sinking fund preferred stocks and collateralized mortgage obligations represented a combined 7.9% of the Company’s total investment portfolio, at market values, at December 31, 2006. The average Standard & Poor’s rating of the Company’s bond holdings was AA at December 31, 2006. Holdings of lower than investment grade bonds constitute approximately 1.4% of total invested assets, at market values.

The nominal average maturity of the overall bond portfolio, including collateralized mortgage obligations and short-term cash investments, was 11.8 years at December 31, 2006, which reflects a heavy portfolio mix in investment grade tax-exempt revenue and municipal bonds. The call-adjusted average maturity of the overall bond portfolio was approximately 5.0 years, related to holdings which are heavily weighted with high coupon issues that are expected to be called prior to maturity. The modified duration of the overall bond portfolio reflecting anticipated early calls was 4.0 years at December 31, 2006, including collateralized mortgage obligations with modified durations of approximately 2.0 years and short-term cash investments that carry no duration. Modified duration measures the length of time it takes, on average, to receive the present value of all the cash flows produced by a bond, including reinvestment of interest. Because it measures four factors (maturity, coupon rate, yield and call terms), which determine sensitivity to changes in interest rates, modified duration is considered a better indicator of price volatility than simple maturity alone. The longer the duration, the greater the price volatility in relation to changes in interest rates.

Equity holdings consist of perpetual preferred stocks and dividend-bearing common stocks on which dividend income is partially tax-sheltered by the 70% corporate dividend exclusion. At year end, short-term cash investments consisted of highly rated short duration securities redeemable on a daily or weekly basis.

The following table summarizes the investment results of the Company for the five years ended December 31, 2006:

11

Competitive Conditions

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive and consists of a large number of multi-state competitors, offering automobile, homeowners, commercial property insurance, and other lines. Many of the Company’s competitors have larger volumes of business and greater financial resources than those of the Company. Based on the most recent regularly published statistical compilations of premiums written in 2005, the Company was the third largest writer of private passenger automobile insurance in California and the fourteenth largest in the United States. Competitors with greater market share in California sell insurance through exclusive agents, rather than through independent agents and brokers.

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly cyclical, characterized by periods of high premium rates and shortages of underwriting capacity (“hard market”) followed by periods of severe price competition and excess capacity (“soft market”). In management’s view, 2004 through 2006 was a period of very good results for companies underwriting automobile insurance, which has now created a soft market. However, the Company has observed that many competitors are decreasing the rates they charge customers for insurance. The Company expects that these rate decreases coupled with loss inflation could lead to a hard market within the next 18 months.

Reputation for service and price are the principal means by which the Company competes with other automobile insurers. The Company believes that it has a good reputation for service, and it has historically been among the lowest-priced insurers doing business in California according to surveys conducted by the California DOI. In addition, the marketing efforts of independent agents and brokers can also provide a competitive advantage.

All rates charged by private passenger automobile insurers in California are subject to the prior approval of the California DOI. See “Regulation—Automobile Insurance Rating Factor Regulations.”

The Company encounters similar competition in each state outside California and line of business in which it operates.

Reinsurance

The Company has reinsurance through the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Trust Fund (“FHCF”) that provides coverage equal to approximately 90 percent of $28 million in excess of $9 million per occurrence based on the latest information provided by FHCF. The coverage is expected to change when new information is available later in 2007. Prior to April 1, 2006, the Company maintained catastrophe reinsurance on Florida and Georgia property policies equal to 95 percent of $80 million in excess of $70 million of losses per occurrence. This reinsurance was placed with domestic and non-domestic reinsurers and several Lloyds syndicates and was not renewed effective April 1, 2006.

The commercial property and homeowners reinsurance treaty that provided reinsurance for losses in excess of $750,000 up to $5 million total loss per incident was not renewed effective January 1, 2007. Prior to January 2005, the Company had reinsurance for commercial property and homeowner policies for losses in excess of $750,000 up to $10 million total loss per incident.

For California homeowners policies, the Company has reduced its catastrophe exposure from earthquakes due to the placement of earthquake risks with the California Earthquake Authority. See “Regulation—California Earthquake Authority.” Although the Company’s catastrophe exposure to earthquakes has been reduced, the Company continues to have catastrophe exposure for fire following an earthquake.

Prior to January 2006, AMI had working layer reinsurance treaties for property and casualty losses in excess of $500,000 up to $3 million, which was not renewed at January 1, 2007.

The Company continues to carry a commercial umbrella reinsurance treaty and seek facultative arrangements for large property risks.

12

The Company has other reinsurance in force that is not material to the consolidated financial statements.

If any reinsurers are unable to perform their obligations under a reinsurance treaty, the Company will be required, as primary insurer, to discharge all obligations to its insureds in their entirety.

Regulation

The Company’s business in the states in which it operates is subject to significant regulation and supervision by the DOI of each state, each of which has broad regulatory, supervisory and administrative powers.

California Department of Insurance Oversight

The powers of the California DOI primarily include the prior approval of insurance rates and rating factors, the establishment of capital and surplus requirements and solvency standards, and restrictions on dividend payments and transactions with affiliates. California DOI regulations and supervision are designed principally for the benefit of policyholders rather than shareholders.

The California DOI is also responsible for conducting periodic financial examinations of insurance companies domiciled in California.

The California DOI’s Market Conduct Division is responsible for conducting periodic examinations of companies to ensure compliance with the California Insurance Code and the California Code of Regulations with respect to rating, underwriting and claims handling practices.

In February 2004, the California DOI issued a Notice of Non-Compliance (“NNC”) alleging that the Company willfully misrepresented the actual price consumers could expect to pay for insurance by the amount of a one-time fee charged by the consumer’s insurance broker. The Company filed a Notice of Defense in response to the NNC. The Company does not believe that it has done anything to warrant a monetary penalty from the California DOI. The San Francisco Superior Court, in Krumme v. Mercury Insurance Company, denied plaintiff’s requests for restitution or any other form of retrospective monetary relief based on the same facts and legal theory. If a monetary penalty is imposed by the California DOI, the Company is unable to estimate the monetary penalty and therefore, no reserve for the potential monetary penalty has been established in the consolidated financial statements. The matter is currently in discovery and a hearing before the administrative law judge has been scheduled for September 2007.

State Insurance Agency Oversight in Other States

The Insurance Companies outside California are subject to the regulatory powers of the DOIs of the various states in which they operate. Those regulatory powers are similar to those of California enumerated above.

Insurance rates in Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Nevada require prior approval from the state DOI, while insurance rates in Illinois, Texas, Virginia, Arizona and Michigan must only be filed with the respective DOI before they are implemented. Oklahoma and Florida have a modified version of prior approval laws. In all states, the insurance code provides that rates must not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.

The DOI in each state in which the Company operates conducts periodic financial examinations of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries domiciled within the respective state. The Georgia DOI is conducting a financial examination of the Company’s Georgia insurance subsidiaries for the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003. The report for this examination is not yet available.

In addition to the financial examinations, the DOI in each state conducts market conduct examinations of the Company’s compliance with insurance statutes and regulations with respect to rating, underwriting, claims handling, billing and other practices. The Florida DOI has conducted a market conduct examination of Mercury

13

Select Management Company, Inc. for the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005. The report for this examination, received in November 2006, noted no deficiencies. The Virginia DOI commenced a market conduct examination of Mercury Casualty Company in January 2007 for the period of January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006. The report for this examination is not yet available.

The operations of the Company are dependent on the laws of the states in which it does business and changes in those laws can materially affect the revenue and expenses of the Company. The Company retains its own legislative advocates in California. The Company made financial contributions of $476,396 and $352,550 to officeholders and candidates in 2006 and 2005, respectively. The Company believes in supporting the political process and intends to continue to make such contributions in amounts which it determines to be appropriate.

Insurance Assessments

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (“CIGA”) was created to provide for payment of claims for which insolvent insurers of most casualty lines are liable but which cannot be paid out of such insurers’ assets. The Company is subject to assessment by CIGA for its pro-rata share of such claims based on premiums written in the particular line in the year preceding the assessment by insurers writing that line of insurance in California. Such assessments are based upon estimates of losses to be incurred in liquidating an insolvent insurer. In a particular year, the Company cannot be assessed an amount greater than 2% of its premiums written in the preceding year. These assessments are recouped through a mandated surcharge to policyholders the year after the assessment. Insurance subsidiaries in the other states are also subject to the provisions of similar insurance guaranty associations.

During 2006, the Company paid approximately $7 million in assessments to the New Jersey Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund and the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association for assessments relating to its personal automobile line of business. In addition, the Company accrued approximately $0.5 million for the Florida Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and paid and accrued approximately $1 million for the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association for assessments relating to its homeowners line of business. As permitted by state law, approximately $5 million of the New Jersey assessment and the majority of the Florida assessments are recoupable through a surcharge to policyholders. During 2006, the Company began to recoup these assessments and will continue recouping them in 2007. It is possible that there will be additional assessments in 2007.

Holding Company Act

The California Companies are subject to regulation by the California DOI pursuant to the provisions of the California Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (the “Holding Company Act”). The California DOI may examine the affairs of each of the California Companies at any time. The Holding Company Act requires disclosure of any material transactions among affiliates within a Holding Company System. Certain transactions and dividends defined to be of an “extraordinary” type may not be effected if the California DOI disapproves the transaction within 30 days after notice. Such transactions include, but are not limited to, extraordinary dividends; management agreements, service contracts, and cost-sharing arrangements; all guarantees that are not quantifiable; derivative transactions or series of derivative transactions; certain reinsurance transactions or modifications thereof in which the reinsurance premium or a change in the insurer’s liabilities equals or exceeds 5 percent of the insurer’s policyholder’s surplus, as of the preceding December 31; sales, purchases, exchanges, loans and extensions of credit; and investments, in the net aggregate, involving more than the lesser of 3% of the respective California Company’s admitted assets or 25% of statutory surplus as regards policyholders, as of the preceding December 31. An extraordinary dividend is a dividend which, together with other dividends or distributions made within the preceding 12 months, exceeds the greater of 10% of the insurance company’s statutory policyholders’ surplus as of the preceding December 31 or the insurance company’s statutory net income for the preceding calendar year. An insurance company is also required to notify the California DOI of any dividend after declaration, but prior to payment.

14

The Holding Company Act also provides that the acquisition or change of “control” of a California domiciled insurance company or of any person who controls such an insurance company cannot be consummated without the prior approval of the California DOI. In general, a presumption of “control” arises from the ownership of voting securities and securities that are convertible into voting securities, which in the aggregate constitute 10% or more of the voting securities of a California insurance company or of a person that controls a California insurance company, such as Mercury General. A person seeking to acquire “control,” directly or indirectly, of the Company must generally file with the California DOI an application for change of control containing certain information required by statute and published regulations and provide a copy of the application to the Company. The Holding Company Act also effectively restricts the Company from consummating certain reorganizations or mergers without prior regulatory approval.

Each of the Insurance Companies is subject to holding company regulations in the states in which it is domiciled; the provisions of which are substantially similar to those of the Holding Company Act.

Assigned Risks

Automobile liability insurers in California are required to sell bodily injury liability, property damage liability, medical expense and uninsured motorist coverage to a proportionate number (based on the insurer’s share of the California automobile casualty insurance market) of those drivers applying for placement as “assigned risks.” Drivers seek placement as assigned risks because their driving records or other relevant characteristics, as defined by Proposition 103, make them difficult to insure in the voluntary market. In 2006, assigned risks represented 0.1% of total automobile direct premiums written and 0.1% of total automobile direct premium earned. The Company attributes the low level of assignments to the competitive voluntary market. Many of the other states in which the Company conducts business offer programs similar to that of California. These programs are not a significant contributor to the business written in those states.

Automobile Insurance Rating Factor Regulations

California Proposition 103 requires that property and casualty insurance rates be approved by the California DOI prior to their use, and that no rate be approved which is excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise in violation of the provisions of the initiative. The proposition specifies four statutory factors required to be applied in “decreasing order of importance” in determining rates for private passenger automobile insurance: (1) the insured’s driving safety record, (2) the number of miles the insured drives annually, (3) the number of years of driving experience of the insured and (4) whatever optional factors are determined by the California DOI to have a substantial relationship to risk of loss and are adopted by regulation. The statute further provides that insurers are required to give at least a 20% discount to “good drivers,” as defined, from rates that would otherwise be charged to such drivers and that no insurer may refuse to insure a “good driver.” The Company’s rate plan was approved by the California DOI and operates under these rating factor regulations.

On July 14, 2006, the California Office of Administrative Law approved proposed regulations by the California DOI that effectively reduce the weight that insurers can place on a person’s residence when establishing automobile insurance rates. Insurance companies in California are now required to file rating plans with the California DOI that comply with the new regulations. There is a two year phase-in period for insurers to fully implement those plans. As such, the Company made a rate filing in August 2006 that reduced the territorial impact of its rates and requested a small overall rate increase. Additional rate filings will be required during the two year phase-in period. The DOI has not yet approved the August 2006 filing, nor is there any assurance that it will. In general, the Company expects that the regulations will cause rates for urban drivers to decrease and those for non-urban drivers to increase. These rate changes are likely to increase consumer shopping for insurance which could affect the volume and the retention rates of the Company’s business. It is the Company’s intention to maintain its competitive position in the marketplace while complying with the new regulations.

On April 3, 2007, new regulations governing the approval of property and casualty insurance rates will become effective in California. These regulations generally tighten the existing Proposition 103 prior approval ratemaking

15

regime primarily by establishing a maximum allowable rate of return of just below 11 percent (the average of short, intermediate and long-term T-bill rates, plus 6 percent) and a minimum allowable rate of return of negative 6 percent of surplus. However, the practical impact of these limitations is unclear because the California DOI has yet to promulgate input values for surplus standards by line, efficiency standards, and reserve ratios. In addition, the new regulations allow for the California DOI to grant a number of variances based on service, loss prevention, business mix, service to underserved communities, and other factors. The Company anticipates the new regulations will be challenged in the courts either before their effective date or with their first application.

On January 31, 2006, the Florida Financial Services Commission approved new regulations requiring insurers to submit information to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (“OIR”) regarding the use of credit reports and credit scores in establishing rules, rates or underwriting guidelines. Under the regulations, any insurer that uses credit scores or credit reports in filing a new rule, rate or underwriting guideline will be required to provide information sufficient to demonstrate that its credit scoring methodology does not disproportionately affect persons of any particular race, color, religion, marital status, age, gender, income level or place of residence. The regulations were challenged by several insurance industry trade associations and were recently struck down by a Florida Administrative Law Judge, and hence, there is no near-term compliance deadline. It is uncertain if and how the OIR intends to continue to pursue this change in the law. The Company intends to maintain its competitive position in the Florida marketplace while complying with the new regulations if they are implemented.

In the January 2007 special session of the Florida Legislature, a bill designed to improve the availability and affordability of property insurance in Florida was passed and subsequently signed by the Governor. Among the significant provisions in the new law is a requirement that all companies that write private passenger automobile policies in Florida also write homeowners policies in Florida if they write homeowners policies in any other state. The law also expands the availability of reinsurance through the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, requires rate filings to reflect savings from the availability of such reinsurance, includes homeowners insurance under Florida’s existing excess profits regulations, and requires insurers to offer discounts for various deductible options and hurricane mitigation measures. The Company is closely monitoring the development of the regulations related to this new law, which are expected to become effective in the spring of 2007.

The Company is not able to determine the impact of any of the legal and regulatory changes described in the four paragraphs above. However, it is possible that the impact could adversely affect the Company and its results from operations.

California Financial Responsibility Law

California requires proof of insurance for new or renewal motor vehicle registration. It also provides for substantial penalties for failure to supply proof of insurance if a driver is stopped for a traffic violation. In addition, California provides that injured uninsured drivers are only able to recover actual, out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages and are not entitled to receive awards for general damages such as “pain and suffering.” This restriction also applies to drunk drivers and fleeing felons. The law has helped control loss costs.

California Earthquake Authority

The California Earthquake Authority (“CEA”) is a quasi-governmental organization that was established to provide a market for earthquake coverage to California homeowners. Since 1998, the Company has placed all new and renewal earthquake coverage offered with its homeowners policy through the CEA. The Company receives a small fee for placing business with the CEA.

Upon the occurrence of a major seismic event, the CEA has the ability to assess participating companies for losses. These assessments are made after CEA capital has been expended and are based upon each company’s participation percentage multiplied by the amount of the total assessment. Based upon the most recent information provided by the CEA, the Company’s maximum total exposure to CEA assessments at June 28, 2006, was approximately $65 million.

16

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002

The federal government enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (the “Act”) to establish a temporary Federal program that provides for a system of shared public and private compensation for insured commercial property and casualty losses resulting from acts of terrorism, as defined within the Act. Originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, the Act was extended for two additional years and amended by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (the “Extension Act”). The Terrorism Insurance Program (the “Program”) requires commercial property and casualty insurers licensed in the United States to participate. The Extension Act modified the provisions of the Act by providing exclusions of certain insured coverages such as commercial automobile insurance, creating a Program trigger for funding of certified events occurring after March 31, 2006 which exceed aggregate industry losses of $50 million in 2006 and $100 million in 2007. The U.S. government funding for certified events will remain at 90% of covered losses in 2006; decreasing to 85% of covered losses in 2007. Each insurance company is subject to a deductible based upon a percentage of the previous year’s direct earned premium; with the percentage increasing each year. The Program, as amended, runs through December 31, 2007.

The Company writes a limited number of commercial property policies generally not considered to be targets of terrorist activities such as airports, hotels, large office structures, amusement parks, landmark defined structures or other public facilities. In addition, the Company does not insure a high concentration of commercial policies in any one area where increased exposure to terrorist threats exists. Consequently, the Company believes its exposure relating to acts of terrorism is low.

17

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY

The following table sets forth certain information concerning the executive officers of the Company as of February 15, 2007:

Mr. Joseph, Chairman of the Board of Directors, has served in this capacity since 1961. He held the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Company for 45 years from 1961 through December 2006 and of President between October 2000 and October 2001. Mr. Joseph has more than 50 years’ experience in the property and casualty insurance business.

Mr. Tirador, President and Chief Executive Officer, served as the Company’s assistant controller from 1994 to 1996. From 1997 to February 1998 he served as the Vice President and Controller of the Automobile Club of Southern California. He rejoined the Company in 1998 as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. He was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer in October 2001 and Chief Executive Officer in January 2007. Mr. Tirador has over 20 years experience in the property and casualty insurance industry and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Mr. Norman, Senior Vice President in charge of Marketing, has been employed by the Company since 1971. Mr. Norman was named to his current position in 1999, and has been a Vice President since 1985 and a Vice President of MCC since 1983. Mr. Norman has supervised the selection and training of agents and managed relations between agents and the Company since 1977.

Ms. Moore, Senior Vice President and Chief Claims Officer, joined the Company in the claims department in 1981. She was named Vice President of Claims of Mercury General in 1991 and Vice President and Chief Claims Officer in 1995. She was promoted to Senior Vice President and Chief Claims Officer on January 1, 2007.

Mr. Deep, Vice President – South East Region, joined the Company in September 2006 as State Administrator for the South East Region and was named Vice President of the South East Region in February 2007. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Deep was Executive Vice President of Shelby Insurance Company from 2004 to 2006 and an Assistant Vice President of USAA from 1994 to 2004.

Mr. Farner, Vice President and Chief Information Officer, joined the Company in January 2007. Prior to joining the Company, he served as Vice President and Chief Information Officer of the Automobile Club of Southern California from 2003 to 2007 and Regional Business Development Manager at Keane from 2001 to 2003. Prior to 2001, he held various management level information technology positions.

18

Mr. Graves, Vice President and Chief Investment Officer, has been employed by the Company in the investment department since 1986. Mr. Graves was appointed Chief Investment Officer in 1998, and named Vice President in April 2001.

Mr. Kitzmiller, Vice President—Underwriting, has been employed by the Company in the underwriting department since 1972. In 1991, he was appointed Vice President of Underwriting of Mercury General and has supervised the California underwriting activities of the Company since early 1996.

Mr. McCathron, Vice President—West Region, joined the Company in the underwriting department in 1993. He was named to his current position in April 2004. Mr. McCathron has served in various positions and responsibilities since joining the Company.

Mr. Simon, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, has been employed by the Company since 1980. He was appointed to his current position in October 2003. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Simon served as a Vice President in the Information Systems Department since December 1999.

Mr. Stalick, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, joined the Company as Corporate Controller in 1997. In October 2000, he was named Chief Accounting Officer, a role he held until appointed to his current position in October 2001. Mr. Stalick is a Certified Public Accountant.

Mr. Toney, Vice President and Chief Actuary, joined the Company in 1984 as a programmer/analyst. In 1994 he earned his Fellowship in the Casualty Actuarial Society and was appointed to his current position.

Mr. Van Wagner, Vice President—North East Region, joined the Company as the New York State Administrator in 1999. He was named to his current position in August 2005. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Van Wagner worked for Prudential Property and Casualty in a variety of positions from 1981 to 1999.

Ms. Walters has been employed by the Company since 1967, and has served as its Secretary since 1982. Ms. Walters was named Vice President—Corporate Affairs in 1998.

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

The Company’s business involves various risks and uncertainties, some of which are discussed in this section. The information discussed below should be considered carefully with the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the other documents and materials filed by the Company with the SEC, as well as news releases and other information publicly disseminated by the Company from time to time.

The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing the Company. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to the Company, or that it currently believes to be immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business. Any of the following risks or uncertainties that develop into actual events could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to the Company and its Business

The Company is a holding company that relies on regulated subsidiaries for cash to satisfy its obligations.

As a holding company, the Company maintains no operations that generate revenue to pay operating expenses, shareholders’ dividends or principal or interest on its indebtedness. Consequently, the Company relies on the ability of its insurance subsidiaries, and particularly its California insurance subsidiaries, to pay dividends for the Company to meet its debt payment obligations and pay other expenses. The ability of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends is regulated by state insurance laws, which limit the amount of, and in certain circumstances may prohibit the payment of, cash dividends. Generally, these insurance regulations permit the payment of dividends only out of earned surplus in any year which, together with other dividends or distributions

19

made within the preceding 12 months, do not exceed the greater of 10% of statutory surplus as of the end of the preceding year or the net income for the preceding year, with larger dividends payable only after receipt of prior regulatory approval. The inability of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends in an amount sufficient to enable the Company to meet its cash requirements at the holding company level could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and its ability to pay dividends to its shareholders.

If the Company’s loss reserves are inadequate, its business and financial position could be harmed.

The process of establishing property and liability loss reserves is inherently uncertain due to a number of factors, including underwriting quality, the frequency and amount of covered losses, variations in claims settlement practices, the costs and uncertainty of litigation, and expanding theories of liability. While the Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in estimating loss reserves, the Company’s methods may prove to be inadequate. If any of these contingencies, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, results in loss reserves that are not sufficient to cover its actual losses, its results of operations, liquidity and financial position may be materially adversely affected.

The Company’s success depends on its ability to accurately underwrite risks and to charge adequate premiums to policyholders.

The Company’s financial condition, liquidity and results of operations depend on the Company’s ability to underwrite and set premiums accurately for the risks it faces. Premium rate adequacy is necessary to generate sufficient premium to offset losses, loss adjustment expenses and underwriting expenses and to earn a profit. In order to price its products accurately, the Company must collect and properly analyze a substantial volume of data; develop, test and apply appropriate rating formulae; closely monitor and timely recognize changes in trends; and project both severity and frequency of losses with reasonable accuracy. The Company’s ability to undertake these efforts successfully, and as a result, price accurately, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation:

Such risks may result in the Company’s pricing being based on outdated, inadequate or inaccurate data or inappropriate analyses, assumptions or methodologies, and may cause the Company to estimate incorrectly future changes in the frequency or severity of claims. As a result, the Company could underprice risks, which would negatively affect the Company’s margins, or it could overprice risks, which could reduce the Company’s volume and competitiveness. In either event, the Company’s operating results, financial condition and cash flow could be materially adversely affected.

20

The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on the Company’s business are uncertain and may have an adverse effect on the Company’s business.

As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect the Company’s business by either extending coverage beyond its underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until some time after the Company has issued insurance policies that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under the Company’s insurance policies may not be known for many years after a policy is issued.

The Company’s private passenger insurance rates are subject to prior approval by the departments of insurance in most of the states in which the Company operates, and to political influences.

In most of the states in which the Company operates, it must obtain prior approval from the state department of insurance of the private passenger insurance rates charged to its customers, including any increases in those rates. If the Company is unable to receive approval of the rate increases it requests, the Company’s ability to operate its business in a profitable manner may be limited and its liquidity, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

From time to time, the private passenger auto insurance industry comes under pressure from state regulators, legislators and special interest groups to reduce, freeze or set rates at levels that do not correspond with underlying costs, in the opinion of the Company’s management. The homeowners insurance business faces similar pressure, particularly as regulators in catastrophe-prone states seek an acceptable methodology to price for catastrophe exposure. In addition, various insurance underwriting and pricing criteria regularly come under attack by regulators, legislators and special interest groups. The result could be legislation or regulations that would adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company remains highly dependent upon California and several other key states to produce revenues and operating profits.

For the year ended December 31, 2006, the Company generated approximately 74.5% of its direct automobile insurance premiums written in California, 8.2% in Florida and 6.5% in New Jersey. The Company’s financial results are therefore subject to prevailing regulatory, legal, economic, demographic, competitive and other conditions in these states and changes in any of these conditions could negatively impact the Company’s results of operations. In 2006, operations in California produced operating profits whereas operations in Florida and New Jersey produced operating losses.

If the Company cannot maintain its A.M. Best ratings, it may not be able to maintain premium volume in its insurance operations sufficient to attain the Company’s financial performance goals.

The Company’s ability to retain its existing business or to attract new business in its insurance operations is affected by its rating by A.M. Best Company. A.M. Best Company currently rates all of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries with sufficient operating history to be rated as either A+ (Superior) or A- (Excellent). If the Company is unable to maintain its A.M. Best ratings, the Company may not be able to grow its premium volume sufficiently to attain its financial performance goals, and if A.M. Best were to downgrade the Company’s rating, the Company could lose significant premium volume.

The Company’s insurance subsidiaries are subject to minimum capital and surplus requirements, and any failure to meet these requirements could subject the Company’s insurance subsidiaries to regulatory action.

The Company’s insurance subsidiaries are subject to risk-based capital standards and other minimum capital and surplus requirements imposed under applicable laws of their state of domicile. The risk-based capital standards, based upon the Risk-Based Capital Model Act adopted by the National Association of Insurance

21

Commissioners, or NAIC, require the Company’s insurance company subsidiaries to report their results of risk-based capital calculations to state departments of insurance and the NAIC. If any of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries fails to meet these standards and requirements, the Department of Insurance regulating such subsidiary may require specified actions by the subsidiary.

There is uncertainty involved in the availability of reinsurance and the collectibility of reinsurance recoverables.

The Company reinsures a portion of its potential losses on the policies it issues to mitigate the volatility of the losses on its financial condition and results of operations. The availability and cost of reinsurance is subject to market conditions, which are outside of the Company’s control. From time to time, market conditions have limited, and in some cases prevented, insurers from obtaining the types and amounts of reinsurance that they consider adequate for their business needs. As a result, the Company may not be able to successfully purchase reinsurance and transfer a portion of the Company’s risk through reinsurance arrangements. In addition, as is customary, the Company initially pays all claims and seeks to recover the reinsured losses from its reinsurers. Although the Company reports as assets the amount of claims paid which the Company expects to recover from reinsurers, no assurance can be given that the Company will be able to collect from its reinsurers. If the amounts actually recoverable under the Company’s reinsurance treaties are ultimately determined to be less than the amount it has reported as recoverable, the Company may incur a loss during the period in which that determination is made.

The Company depends on independent agents who may discontinue sales of its policies at any time.

The Company sells its insurance policies through more than 4,500 independent brokers and agents. The Company must compete with other insurance carriers for these brokers and agents’ business. Some competitors offer a larger variety of products, lower prices for insurance coverage, higher commissions, or more attractive non-cash incentives. To maintain its relationship with these independent agents, the Company must pay competitive commissions, be able to respond to their needs quickly and adequately, and create a consistently high level of customer satisfaction. If these independent agents find it preferable to do business with the Company’s competitors, it would be difficult to renew the Company’s existing business or attract new business. State regulations may also limit the manner in which the Company’s producers are compensated or incentivized. Such developments could negatively impact the Company’s relationship with these parties and ultimately reduce revenues.

One independent broker of the Company is responsible for a significant amount of the Company’s revenues, and the loss of business provided by that broker could adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

The Company markets its insurance policies primarily through independent agents and brokers. One broker provided 13% of the Company’s direct written premiums in the year ended December 31, 2006. Loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided by this broker could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Changes in market interest rates or defaults may have an adverse effect on the Company’s investment portfolio, which may adversely affect the Company’s financial results.

The Company’s results are affected, in part, by the performance of its investment portfolio. The Company’s investment portfolio contains interest rate sensitive-investments, such as municipal and corporate bonds. Increases in market interest rates may have an adverse impact on the value of the investment portfolio by decreasing unrealized capital gains on fixed income securities. Declining market interest rates could have an adverse impact on the Company’s investment income as it invests positive cash flows from operations and as it reinvests proceeds from maturing and called investments in new investments that could yield lower rates than the Company’s investments have historically generated. Defaults in the Company’s investment portfolio may produce operating losses and reduce the Company’s capital and surplus.

22

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions and other factors beyond the Company’s control. Although the Company takes measures to manage the risks of investing in a changing interest rate environment, it may not be able to mitigate interest rate sensitivity effectively. The Company’s mitigation efforts include maintaining a high quality portfolio with a relatively short duration to reduce the effect of interest rate changes on book value. Despite its mitigation efforts, a significant increase in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s book value.

The Company’s business is vulnerable to significant catastrophic property loss, which could have an adverse effect on its results of operations.

The Company faces a significant risk of loss in the ordinary course of its business for property damage resulting from natural disasters, man-made catastrophes and other catastrophic events, particularly hurricanes, earthquakes, hail storms, explosions, tropical storms, fires, war, acts of terrorism, severe winter weather and other natural and man-made disasters. Because catastrophic loss events are by their nature unpredictable, historical results of operations may not be indicative of future results of operations, and the occurrence of claims from catastrophic events is likely to result in substantial volatility in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations from period to period. Although the Company attempts to manage its exposure to such events, the occurrence of one or more major catastrophes in any given period could have a material and adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations and could result in substantial outflows of cash as losses are paid.

The Company’s expansion plans may adversely affect its future profitability.

The Company is currently expanding and intends to further expand its operations in several of the states in which the Company has operations and into states in which it has not yet begun operations. The intended expansion will necessitate increased expenditures. The Company expects to fund these expenditures out of cash flow from operations. The expansion may not occur, or if it does occur may not be successful in providing increased revenues or profitability. If the Company’s cash flow from operations is insufficient to cover the increased costs of the expansion, or if the expansion does not provide the benefits anticipated, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations and ability to grow its business may be harmed.

The Company may require additional capital in the future, which may not be available or may only be available on unfavorable terms.

The Company’s future capital requirements depends on many factors, including its ability to write new business successfully, its ability to establish premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses and the success of its current expansion plans. The Company may need to raise additional funds through financings or curtail its growth and reduce its assets. Any equity or debt financing, if available at all, may not be available on terms that are favorable to us. In the case of equity financings, dilution to the Company’s shareholders could result, and in any case such securities may have rights, preferences and privileges that are senior to those of the Company’s current shareholders. If the Company cannot obtain adequate capital on favorable terms or at all, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

The Company relies on its information technology systems to manage many aspects of its business, and any failure of these systems to function properly or any interruption in their operation could result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company depends on the accuracy, reliability and proper functioning of its information technology systems. The Company relies on these information technology systems to effectively manage many aspects of its business, including underwriting, policy acquisition, claims processing and handling, accounting, reserving and actuarial processes and policies, and to maintain its policyholder data. The Company is developing and deploying

23

new information technology systems that are designed to manage many of these functions across all of the states in which it operates and all of the lines of insurance it offers. See Item 7. “Technology.” The failure of hardware or software that supports the Company’s information technology systems, the loss of data contained in the systems, or any delay or failure in the full deployment of the Company’s new information technology systems could disrupt its business and could result in decreased premiums, increased overhead costs and inaccurate reporting, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, despite system redundancy, the implementation of security measures and the existence of a disaster recovery plan for the Company’s information technology systems, these systems are vulnerable to damage or interruption from:

It is possible that a system failure, accident or security breach could result in a material disruption to the Company’s business. In addition, substantial costs may be incurred to remedy the damages caused by these disruptions. Following implementation of its new information technology systems, the Company may from time to time install new or upgraded business management systems. To the extent that a critical system fails or is not properly implemented and the failure cannot be corrected in a timely manner, the Company may experience disruptions to the business that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

Changes in accounting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) or other standard-setting bodies may adversely affect the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company’s consolidated financial statements are subject to the application of GAAP, which is periodically revised and/or expanded. Accordingly, the Company is required to adopt new or revised accounting standards from time to time issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the FASB. It is possible that future changes the Company is required to adopt could change the current accounting treatment that the Company applies to its consolidated financial statements and that such changes could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results and financial condition. See “Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

The Company’s disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all acts of fraud.

The Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed in reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management and is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. The Company’s management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, they cannot provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Company have been prevented or detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by an unauthorized override of the controls. The design of any systems of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and the Company cannot assure that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential

24

future conditions. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in a cost effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Failure to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting may have an adverse effect on the Company’s stock price.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC require the Company to include in its Form 10-K a report by its management regarding the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The report includes, among other things, an assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of the end of its fiscal year, including a statement as to whether or not the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective. This assessment must include disclosure of any material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting identified by management. Areas of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting may require improvement from time to time. If management is unable to assert that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective now or in any future period, or if the Company’s auditors are unable to express an opinion on the effectiveness of those internal controls, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of the Company’s financial reports, which could have an adverse effect on its stock price.

The ability of the Company to attract, develop and retain talented employees, managers and executives, and to maintain appropriate staffing levels, is critical to the Company’s success.

As the Company expands its operations, it must hire and train new employees, and retain current employees to handle the resulting increase in new inquiries, policies, customers and claims. The failure of the Company to successfully hire and retain a sufficient number of skilled employees could result in the Company having to slow the growth of its business in some jurisdictions. It could also affect the Company’s ability to develop and deploy information technology systems that are important to the success of the Company. In addition, the failure to adequately staff its claims and underwriting departments could result in decreased quality of the Company’s claims and underwriting operations.

The Company’s success also depends heavily upon the continued contributions of its executive officers, both individually and as a group. The Company’s future performance will be substantially dependent on its ability to retain and motivate its management team. The loss of the services of any of the Company’s executive officers could prevent the Company from successfully implementing its business strategy, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company faces litigation risks which, if decided adversely to the Company, could impact its financial results.

The Company and its insurance subsidiaries are named as defendants in a number of lawsuits. These lawsuits are described more fully in “Item 3. Legal Proceedings.” Litigation, by its very nature, is unpredictable and the outcome of these cases is uncertain. The precise nature of the relief that may be sought or granted in any lawsuits is uncertain and may, if these lawsuits are determined adversely to the Company, negatively impact the manner in which the Company conducts its business and its results of operations, which could materially increase the Company’s costs and expenses.

In addition, potential litigation involving new claim, coverage and business practice issues could adversely affect the Company’s business by changing the way policies are priced, extending coverage beyond its underwriting intent or increasing the size of claims. The effects of these and other unforeseen emerging claim, coverage and business practice issues could negatively impact the Company’s revenues or its methods of doing business.

25

The failure of any of the loss limitation methods employed by the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Various provisions of the Company’s policies, such as limitations or exclusions from coverage which are intended to limit the Company’s risks, may not be enforceable in the manner the Company intends. In addition, the Company’s policies contain conditions requiring the prompt reporting of claims and the Company’s right to decline coverage in the event of a violation of that condition. While the Company’s insurance product exclusions and limitations reduce the Company’s loss exposure and help eliminate known exposures to certain risks, it is possible that a court or regulatory authority could nullify or void an exclusion or legislation could be enacted modifying or barring the use of such endorsements and limitations in a way that would adversely effect the Company’s loss experience, which could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to the Company’s Industry

The private passenger insurance business is highly competitive, and the Company may not be able to compete effectively against larger, better-capitalized companies.

The Company competes with many property and casualty insurance companies selling private passenger automobile insurance in the states in which the Company operates, many of which are better capitalized than the Company and have higher A.M. Best ratings. The superior capitalization of many of the Company’s competitors may enable them to offer lower rates, to withstand larger losses, and to take advantage more effectively of new marketing opportunities. The Company’s competition may also become increasingly better capitalized in the future as the traditional barriers between insurance companies and banks and other financial institutions erode and as the property and casualty industry continues to consolidate. The Company’s ability to compete against these larger, better-capitalized competitors depends importantly on its ability to deliver superior service and its strong relationships with independent agents.

The Company may from time to time undertake strategic marketing and operating initiatives to improve its competitive position and drive growth. If the Company is unable to successfully implement new strategic initiatives or if the Company’s marketing campaigns do not attract new customers, the Company’s competitive position may be harmed, which could adversely affect the Company’s business and results of operations.

Additionally, in a highly competitive industry such as the automobile insurance industry, some of the Company’s competitors may fail from time to time. In the event of a failure of a major insurance company, the Company could be adversely affected, as the Company and other insurance companies would likely be required by state law to absorb the losses of the failed insurer, and as the Company would be faced with an unexpected surge in new business from the failed insurer’s former policyholders.

The Company may be adversely affected by changes in the personal automobile insurance business.

Approximately 84% of the Company’s direct written premiums for the year ended December 31, 2006 were generated from personal automobile insurance policies. Adverse developments in the market for personal automobile insurance, or the personal automobile insurance industry in general, whether related to changes in competition, pricing or regulations, could cause the Company’s results of operations to suffer. This industry is also exposed to the risks of severe weather conditions, such as rainstorms, snowstorms, hail and ice storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and, to a lesser degree, explosions, terrorist attacks and riots. The automobile insurance business is also affected by cost trends that impact profitability. Factors which negatively affect cost trends include inflation in automobile repair costs, automobile parts costs, used car prices and medical care. Increased litigation of claims, particularly those involving allegations of bad faith or seeking extra contractual and punitive damages, may also adversely affect loss costs.

26

The insurance industry is subject to extensive regulation, which may affect the Company’s ability to execute its business plan and grow its business.

The Company is subject to comprehensive regulation and supervision by government agencies in each of the states in which its insurance subsidiaries is domiciled, as well as in the states where its insurance subsidiaries sell insurance products, issue policies and handle claims. Some states impose restrictions or require prior regulatory approval of specific corporate actions, which may adversely affect the Company’s ability to operate, innovate, obtain necessary rate adjustments in a timely manner or grow its business profitably. These regulations provide safeguards for policyholders and are not intended to protect the interests of shareholders. The Company’s ability to comply with these laws and regulations, and to obtain necessary regulatory action in a timely manner, is and will continue to be critical to its success. Some of these regulations include:

Required Licensing. The Company operates under licenses issued by the Departments of Insurance in the states in which the Company sells insurance. If a regulatory authority denies or delays granting a new license, the Company’s ability to enter that market quickly or offer new insurance products in that market may be substantially impaired.

Transactions Between Insurance Companies and Their Affiliates. Transactions between the Company’s insurance subsidiaries and their affiliates (including the Company) generally must be disclosed to state regulators, and prior approval of the applicable regulator generally is required before any material or extraordinary transaction may be consummated. State regulators may refuse to approve or delay approval of some transactions, which may adversely affect the Company’s ability to innovate or operate efficiently.

Regulation of Insurance Rates and Approval of Policy Forms. The insurance laws of most states in which the Company conducts business require insurance companies to file insurance rate schedules and insurance policy forms for review and approval. If, as permitted in some states, the Company begins using new rates before they are approved, it may be required to issue refunds or credits to the Company’s policyholders if the new rates are ultimately deemed excessive or unfair and disapproved by the applicable state regulator. Accordingly, the Company’s ability to respond to market developments or increased costs in that state can be adversely affected.

Restrictions on Cancellation, Non-Renewal or Withdrawal. Most of the states in which the Company operates have laws and regulations that limit its ability to exit a market. For example, these states may limit a private passenger auto insurer’s ability to cancel and non-renew policies or they may prohibit the Company from withdrawing one or more lines of insurance business from the state unless prior approval is received from the state insurance department. In some states, these regulations extend to significant reductions in the amount of insurance written, not just to a complete withdrawal. Laws and regulations that limit the Company’s ability to cancel and non-renew policies in some states or locations and that subject withdrawal plans to prior approval requirements may restrict the Company’s ability to exit unprofitable markets, which may harm its business and results of operations.

Other Regulations. The Company must also comply with regulations involving, among other things:

27

Compliance with laws and regulations addressing these and other issues often will result in increased administrative costs. In addition, these laws and regulations may limit the Company’s ability to underwrite and price risks accurately, prevent it from obtaining timely rate increases necessary to cover increased costs and may restrict its ability to discontinue unprofitable relationships or exit unprofitable markets. These results, in turn, may adversely affect the Company’s profitability or its ability or desire to grow its business in certain jurisdictions, which could have an adverse effect on the market value of the Company’s common stock. The failure to comply with these laws and regulations may also result in actions by regulators, fines and penalties, and in extreme cases, revocation of the Company’s ability to do business in that jurisdiction. In addition, the Company may face individual and class action lawsuits by insureds and other parties for alleged violations of certain of these laws or regulations.

Regulation may become more extensive in the future, which may adversely affect the Company’s business and results of operations.

No assurance can be given that states will not make existing insurance-related laws and regulations more restrictive in the future or enact new restrictive laws. New or more restrictive regulation in any state in which the Company conducts business could make it more expensive for it to continue to conduct business in these states, restrict the premiums the Company is able to charge or otherwise change the way the Company does business. In such events, the Company may seek to reduce its writings in, or to withdraw entirely from, these states. In addition, from time to time, the United States Congress and certain federal agencies investigate the current condition of the insurance industry to determine whether federal regulation is necessary. The Company cannot predict whether and to what extent new laws and regulations that would affect its business will be adopted, the timing of any such adoption and what effects, if any, they may have on the Company’s operations, profitability and financial condition.

Assessments and other surcharges for guaranty funds, second-injury funds, catastrophe funds and other mandatory pooling arrangements may reduce the Company’s profitability.

Virtually all states require insurers licensed to do business in their state to bear a portion of the loss suffered by some insureds as the result of impaired or insolvent insurance companies. Many states also have laws that established second-injury funds to provide compensation to injured employees for aggravation of a prior condition or injury which are funded by either assessments based on paid losses or premium surcharge mechanisms. In addition, as a condition to the ability to conduct business in various states, the insurance subsidiaries must participate in mandatory property and casualty shared market mechanisms or pooling arrangements, which provide various types of insurance coverage to individuals or other entities that otherwise are unable to purchase that coverage from private insurers. The effect of these assessments and mandatory shared-market mechanisms or changes in them could reduce the Company’s profitability in any given period or limit its ability to grow its business.

Loss or significant restriction of the use of credit scoring in the pricing and underwriting of personal lines products could reduce the Company’s future profitability.

The Company uses credit scoring as a factor in pricing decisions where allowed by state law. Some consumer groups and regulators have questioned whether the use of credit scoring unfairly discriminates against people with low incomes, minority groups and the elderly and are calling for the prohibition or restriction on the use of credit scoring in underwriting and pricing. Laws or regulations that significantly curtail the use of credit scoring, if enacted in a large number of states, could reduce the Company’s future profitability.

28

Risks Related to the Company’s Stock

The Company is controlled by a few large shareholders who will be able to exert significant influence over matters requiring shareholder approval, including change of control transactions.

George Joseph and Gloria Joseph collectively own more than 50% of the Company’s common stock. Accordingly, George Joseph and Gloria Joseph have the ability to exert significant influence on the actions the Company may take in the future, including change of control transactions. This concentration of ownership may conflict with the interests of the Company’s shareholders and the holders of its debt securities.

Future sales of common stock may affect the market price of the Company’s common stock and the future exercise of options and warrants will result in dilution to the Company’s shareholders.

The Company may raise capital in the future through the issuance and sale of shares of its common stock. The Company cannot predict what effect, if any, such future sales will have on the market price of its common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of its common stock in the public market could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s outstanding common stock, and may make it more difficult for shareholders to sell common stock at a time and price that the shareholder deems appropriate. In addition, the Company has issued options to purchase shares of its common stock. In the event that any options to purchase common stock are exercised, shareholders will suffer dilution in their investment.

Applicable insurance laws may make it difficult to effect a change of control of the Company or the sale of any of its insurance subsidiaries.

Before a person can acquire control of a U.S. insurance company or any holding company of a U.S. insurance company, prior written approval must be obtained from the DOI of the state where the insurer is domiciled. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of the insurer or holding company, the state DOI will consider a number of factors relating to the acquiror and the transaction. These laws and regulations may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent a change of control of the Company or the sale by the Company of any of its insurance subsidiaries, including transactions that some or all of the Company’s shareholders might consider to be desirable.

Although the Company has consistently paid cash dividends in the past, it may not be able to pay cash dividends in the future.

The Company has paid cash dividends on a consistent basis since the public offering of its common stock in November 1985. However, future cash dividends will depend upon a variety of factors, including the ability of the insurance subsidiaries to make distributions to the Company, which may be restricted by financial, regulatory or tax constraints. Also, there can be no assurance that the Company will continue to pay dividends even if the necessary financial and regulatory conditions are met and if sufficient cash is available for distribution.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None

29

Item 2. Properties

The Company owns the following buildings:

The remaining space owned by the Company is leased to independent tenants.

The Company leases all of its other office space used for operations. Office location is not crucial to the Company’s operations, and the Company anticipates no difficulty in extending these leases or obtaining comparable office space.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

The Company is, from time to time, named as a defendant in various lawsuits incidental to its insurance business. In most of these actions, plaintiffs assert claims for punitive damages, which are not insurable under judicial decisions. The Company has established reserves for lawsuits in cases where the Company is able to estimate its potential exposure and it is probable that the court will rule against the Company. The Company vigorously defends actions against it, unless a reasonable settlement appears appropriate. An unfavorable ruling against the Company in the actions currently pending may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations in the period of such ruling, however, it is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition.

Sam Donabedian, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance Company, et al., was originally filed on April 20, 2001 in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting, among other things, a claim that the Company’s calculation of persistency discounts to determine premiums is an unfair business practice, a violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company originally prevailed on a Demurrer to the Complaint and the case was dismissed; however, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling, deciding that the California Insurance Commissioner does not have the exclusive right to review the calculation of insurance rates/premiums. After filing two additional pleadings, on June 28, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (the CLRA claim previously had been dismissed with prejudice). Plaintiff again sought injunctive relief, unspecified restitution and monetary damages as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Without leave of court, the Plaintiff also attempted to state claims for breach of contract and fraud. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike certain portions of the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint. Following a hearing on September 19, 2005, the Court took the matter under submission. While the motions were under submission, counsel for the Plaintiff asked Mercury to engage in settlement discussions. The Court agreed to stay the matter and counsel for the Plaintiff and the Company met on several occasions to seek resolution, but none was reached.

Additionally, over the Company’s objection, on May 9, 2005, the trial court permitted The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (“FTCR”) to file a Complaint in Intervention to allege that the Company’s calculation of persistency discounts constitutes a violation of insurance Code Section 1861.02(a) and (c). Following a ruling by the Court of Appeal in another case which found that there is no private right of action to allege violations of Section 1861.02, the Company brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings to have FTCR’s Complaint in Intervention dismissed. That motion was heard on April 28, 2006. Subsequent to the hearing, FTCR filed an

30

amended complaint in intervention, and Mercury again filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court denied at a hearing on July 31, 2006. In view of the then on-going settlement discussions with the Plaintiff, the Company did not seek further appellate review of the Court’s ruling, but is now contemplating whether to challenge FTCR’s participation in the case since the class settlement was not approved.

During the fall of 2005, counsel for the Plaintiff and the Company met on several occasions in an effort to resolve the case. FTCR was not invited to participate in these discussions. When Plaintiff and the Company were not able to reach a resolution, the Court ordered the parties to a settlement conference before another judge. On August 1, 2006, following three settlement conferences, the Company and the Plaintiff reached a preliminary settlement which was subject to completion of the class approval process and was also subject to objections and review by the Court. Prior to the hearing scheduled for October 30, 2006, the FTCR filed objections to the proposed settlement. Also, shortly before the hearing, the California DOI filed a letter with the Court contending that the terms of the settlement, which provided for a coupon to class members to be used toward the purchase of “new,” not renewal business, constituted a “discount” of insurance rates and thus would be subject to the California DOI’s approval. Following several delays and further briefing by the parties, at a hearing on February 5, 2007, the Court declined to give preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. Accordingly, upon the Company’s request, the tentative ruling on the Company’s demurrer and motion to strike was unsealed. The Court sustained the Company’s demurrer to all but the Section 17200 claim, as well as a claim for alleged violation of Insurance Code Section 1861.02 which Plaintiff’s counsel now has indicated will be voluntarily dismissed. The Court also granted the Company’s request to strike the punitive damage claim. It is expected that the Court will establish a schedule for discovery and briefing on the issue of administrative estoppel (that is whether the Company’s conduct was protected and/or reasonable since the persistency discount was part of a rate filing plan approved by the California DOI). The parties have agreed to litigate this issue first.

While the ultimate outcome of this case cannot be anticipated at this time, the Company will continue to vigorously defend this case.

In Marissa Goodman, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance Company (Los Angeles Superior Court), filed June 16, 2002, the Plaintiff is challenging the Company’s use of certain automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical payments. The Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class action certification to include all of the Company’s insureds from 1998 to the present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach the policy limits for medical payments. On January 11, 2007, the Court certified the requested class and scheduled a case management conference to discuss notifying class members. The Plaintiff alleges that these automated databases systematically undervalue medical payment claims to the detriment of insureds. The Plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance carriers in the industry. The case has been coordinated with two other similar cases, and also with ten other cases relating to total loss claims. The Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman sustained any damages as a result of the Company’s handling of her medical payments claim. The original trial date has been vacated by the Court and not rescheduled. The Company is not able to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate a range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome at the present time. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit jointly with the other defendants in the coordinated proceedings.

Robert Dolan, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Company, et al., is a collective action claim filed in April of 2006, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs, former automobile policy field adjusters, claim that they and the members of the class they seek to represent were denied overtime compensation in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class of field adjusters for a period of three years preceding the filing of the action, and recovery of allegedly unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court has granted conditional certification for notice purposes. In February 2007, the Company and the Plaintiff reached a preliminary settlement which is subject to review and approval by the Court. The ultimate outcome of this case cannot be anticipated at

31

this time and the Company cannot determine if the settlement will be approved by the Court or the potential impact of the settlement or the case, if the settlement is not approved, on the Company’s financial results.

The Company is also involved in proceedings relating to assessments and rulings made by the California Franchise Tax Board. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations – General,” and “Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Item 4.    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders by the Company during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this report.

PART II

Price Range of Common Stock

The Company’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: MCY). The following table shows the high and low sales prices per share in each quarter during the past two years as reported in the consolidated transaction reporting system.

The closing price of the Company’s common stock on February 15, 2007 was $54.46.

32

Performance Graph

The graph below compares the cumulative total shareholder return on the shares of Common Stock of the Company (MCY) for the last five years with the cumulative total return on the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index and a peer group comprised of selected property and casualty insurance companies over the same period (assuming the investment of $100 in the Company’s Common Stock, the S&P 500 Index and the peer group at the closing price on December 31, 2001 and the reinvestment of all dividends).

The peer group consists of Ace Limited, Alleghany Corp, Allstate Corporation, American Financial Group, Berkley W.R., Berkshire Hathaway, CNA Financial, Chubb Corp, Cincinnati Financial, Everest Re Group, Ltd., Hanover Insurance Group, HCC Insurance Holdings, Markel Corporation, Ohio Casualty, Old Republic International, PMI Group, Inc., Partner Re, Ltd., Progressive Corp, RLI Corporation, Safeco Corp, St. Paul Travelers, Selective Insurance, TransAtlantic Holdings, 21st Century Insurance and XL Capital Ltd.

Dividends

Since the public offering of its common stock in November 1985, the Company has paid regular quarterly dividends on its common stock. During 2006 and 2005, the Company paid dividends on its common stock of $1.92 per share and $1.72 per share, respectively. On February 2, 2007, the Board of Directors declared a $0.52 quarterly dividend payable on March 29, 2007 to shareholders of record on March 15, 2007.

33

The common stock dividend rate has increased at least once each year since dividends were initiated in January, 1986. For financial statement purposes, the Company records dividends on the declaration date. The Company expects to continue the payment of quarterly dividends; however, the continued payment and amount of cash dividends will depend upon, among other factors, the Company’s operating results, overall financial condition, capital requirements and general business conditions.

As a holding company, Mercury General is largely dependent upon dividends from its subsidiaries to pay dividends to its shareholders. These subsidiaries are subject to state laws that restrict their ability to distribute dividends. For example, California state laws permit a casualty insurance company to pay dividends and advances within any 12-month period, without any prior regulatory approval, in an amount up to the greater of 10% of statutory earned surplus at the preceding December 31, or statutory net income for the calendar year preceding the date the dividend is paid. Under the state restrictions, the direct insurance subsidiaries of the Company may pay dividends to Mercury General during 2007 of up to approximately $247 million without prior regulatory approval. See “Item 1. Business—Regulation—Holding Company Act,” and “Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Shareholders of Record

The approximate number of holders of record of the Company’s common stock as of February 15, 2007 was 182.

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data