17. Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

The Company is obligated under various non-cancellable lease agreements providing for office space, automobiles, and office equipment that expire at various dates through the year 2019. For leases that contain predetermined escalations of the minimum rentals, the Company recognizes the related rent expense on a straight-line basis and records the difference between the recognized rental expense and amounts payable under the leases as deferred rent in other liabilities. This liability amounted to approximately $1,642,000 and $1,159,000 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Total rent expense under these lease agreements was $18,207,000, $17,076,000, and $17,529,000 for 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.

The following table presents future minimum commitments for operating leases as of December 31, 2011:


Year Ending December 31,	Operating Leases
	(Amounts in thousands)
2012	$	15,821
2013		10,551
2014		5,410
2015		3,185
2016		2,436
Thereafter		1,624

California Earthquake Authority ("CEA")

The CEA is a quasi-governmental organization that was established to provide a market for earthquake coverage to California homeowners. The Company places all new and renewal earthquake coverage offered with its homeowners policies through the CEA. The Company receives a small fee for placing business with the CEA, which is recorded as other income in the consolidated statements of operations. 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 April 1, 2011, the most recent date at which information was available, was approximately $55.8 million. There was no assessment made in 2011.

Regulatory Matters

On April 9, 2010, the California DOI issued a Notice of Non-Compliance ("2010 NNC") to MIC, MCC, and CAIC based on a Report of Examination of the Rating and Underwriting Practices of these companies issued by the California DOI on February 18, 2010. The 2010 NNC includes allegations of 35 instances of noncompliance with applicable California insurance law and seeks to require that each of MIC, MCC, and CAIC change its rating and underwriting practices to rectify the alleged noncompliance and may also seek monetary penalties. On April 30, 2010, the Company submitted a Statement of Compliance and Notice of Defense to the 2010 NNC, in which it denied the allegations contained in the 2010 NNC and provided specific defenses to each allegation. The Company also requested a hearing in the event that the Statement of Compliance and Notice of Defense does not establish to the satisfaction of the California DOI that the alleged noncompliance does not exist, and the matters described in the 2010 NNC are not otherwise able to be resolved informally with the California DOI. The California DOI has recently advised the Company that it is continuing to review this matter and it continues to question certain past practices. No final determination has been made by the California DOI on how it will proceed going forward. The Company anticipates that it will be advised by the California DOI in the near future as to how the California DOI intends to proceed. The Company denies the allegations in the 2010 NNC and believes that it has done nothing to warrant the monetary penalties cited in the 2010 NNC.

In March 2006, the California DOI issued an Amended Notice of Non-Compliance to a Notice of Non-Compliance originally issued in February 2004 (as amended, "2004 NNC") alleging that the Company charged rates in violation of the California Insurance Code, willfully permitted its agents to charge broker fees in violation of California law, and willfully misrepresented the actual price insurance consumers could expect to pay for insurance by the amount of a fee charged by the consumer's insurance broker. The California DOI seeks to impose a fine for each policy in which the Company allegedly permitted an agent to charge a broker fee, which the California DOI contends is the use of an unapproved rate, rating plan or rating system. Further, the California DOI seeks to impose a penalty for each and every date on which the Company allegedly used a misleading advertisement alleged in the 2004 NNC. Finally, based upon the conduct alleged, the California DOI also contends that the Company acted fraudulently in violation of Section 704(a) of the California Insurance Code, which permits the California Commissioner of Insurance to suspend certificates of authority for a period of one year. The Company filed a Notice of Defense in response to the 2004 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 Robert Krumme, On Behalf Of The General Public v. Mercury Insurance Company, Mercury Casualty Company, and California Automobile Insurance Company, denied plaintiff's requests for restitution or any other form of retrospective monetary relief based on the same facts and legal theory. While this matter has been the subject of multiple continuations since the original Notice of Non-Compliance was issued in 2004, the Company has received some favorable evidentiary related rulings from the administrative law judge that may impact the outcome of this matter. On June 7, 2011, the Company filed a number of motions, including motions designed to dispose of the 2004 NNC or to substantially pare it down. Briefing on the motions is complete and the Company has requested oral argument, but no hearing has been set. On January 31, 2012, the administrative law judge issued a bifurcation order which ordered a separate hearing on the California DOI's order to show cause and accusation, concerning the California DOI's false advertising allegations, to be scheduled after the Commissioner's disposition of the proposed decision on the notice of noncompliance, which concern the California DOI's allegations that Mercury used unlawful rates.

In the 2004 and 2010 NNC matters, the Company believes that no monetary penalties are warranted and intends to defend the issues vigorously. The Company has been subject to fines and penalties by the California DOI in the past due to alleged violations of the California Insurance Code. The largest and most recent of these was settled in 2008 for $300,000. However, prior settlement amounts are not necessarily indicative of the potential results in the current Notice of Non-Compliance matters. Based upon its understanding of the facts and the California Insurance Code, the Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of the 2004 and 2010 NNC matters will be material to the Company's financial position. The Company has accrued a liability for the estimated cost to defend itself in the regulatory matters described above.

Litigation

The Company is, from time to time, named as a defendant in various lawsuits or regulatory actions incidental to its insurance business. The majority of lawsuits brought against the Company relate to insurance claims that arise in the normal course of business and are reserved for through the reserving process. For a discussion of the Company's reserving methods, see Note 1.

The Company also establishes reserves for non-insurance claims related lawsuits, regulatory actions, and other contingencies for which the Company is able to estimate its potential exposure and when the Company believes a loss is probable. For loss contingencies believed to be reasonably possible, the Company also discloses the nature of the loss contingency and an estimate of the possible loss, range of loss, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. While actual losses may differ from the amounts recorded and the ultimate outcome of the Company's pending actions is generally not yet determinable, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of currently pending legal or regulatory proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

In all cases, the Company vigorously defends itself unless a reasonable settlement appears appropriate.

The Company is also involved in proceedings relating to assessments and rulings made by the FTB. See Note 10.