Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

                                          (Mark One)

|X|               QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003

OR

|_|               TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from
to
Commission file number 1-12338

VESTA INSURANCE GROUP, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(205) 970-7000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Not Applicable
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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. |X|   Yes      |_|    No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant's common stock,
$.01 par value, as of August 12, 2003
36,678,060

Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.

Index

Part I
Item 1. Financial Statements
Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

1

Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
Statements of Operations
(amounts in thousands, except per share data)

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

2

Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
(amounts in thousands)

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

3

Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(amounts in thousands except per share amounts)

Note A-Significant Accounting Policies

     Basis of Presentation: The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. (the "Company") have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and with the instructions of Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals and other adjustments, such as impairments) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. The results of operations and cash flows for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of results for the full year.

     Reclassifications: Certain amounts in the financial statements presented have been reclassified from amounts previously reported in order to be comparable between periods. These reclassifications have no effect on previously reported stockholders' equity or net income loss during the periods involved.

     New Accounting Standards: Effective July 1, 2002, Vesta adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 145 (SFAS No. 145) "Rescission of FASB Statement No. 4, 44 and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections", which had been issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board "FASB" in April 2002. SFAS No. 145 rescinds SFAS No. 4, which required all gains and losses from extinguishments of debt to be aggregated and, if material, classified as an extraordinary item, net of related income tax effect. In connection with our adoption of SFAS No. 145, we have reclassified gains on the extinguishment of debt from extraordinary gain on debt extinguishment to other expense. These reclassifications decreased total expenses by $1.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2002.

      In November 2002, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. ("FIN") 45, "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosures Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others." FIN 45 clarifies the requirements of SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," related to a guarantors accounting for, and disclosures of, the issuance of certain types of guarantees. The disclosure requirements are effective for financial statements of interim and annual periods ending after December 15, 2002 and have been included in the Notes to the consolidated financial statements included herein. The impact on the Company's financial statements from the application of the recognition and measurement provisions of FIN No. 45 is dependent on the level of guarantees issued or modified in 2003 and thereafter. No guaranties were issued or modified during the six months ended June 30, 2003, which were impacted by the provisions of FIN No. 45.

      In January 2003, the FASB issued FIN 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" which clarifies the application of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, "Consolidated Financial Statements." This Interpretation provides guidance on the identification and consolidation of variable interest entities ("VIEs"), whereby control is achieved through means other than through voting rights. The effective date of FIN 46 is for the first fiscal quarter beginning after June 15, 2003. Management believes the adoption of FIN 46 will not have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

     In May 2002, the Derivatives Implementation Group of the FASB exposed for comment issue No. B36, "Bifurcation of Embedded Credit Derivatives" ("DIG B36"). DIG B36 would require the bifurcation of potential embedded derivatives within modified coinsurance and funds withheld coinsurance arrangements in which the terms require the future payment of a principal amount plus a return based on a specified proportion of the ceding company's return on either its general account assets or a specified block of those assets. The proposed effective date of the implementation guidance in DIG B36 is for the first fiscal quarter beginning after June 15, 2003 and would be applied on a prospective basis. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this pronouncement.

      In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity" ("SFAS 150"). SFAS 150 establishes how an issuer classifies and measures certain free standing financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and equity and requires that such instruments be classified as liabilities. SFAS 150 was effective for financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003, and otherwise is effective at the beginning of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003 for those existing financial instruments subject to the provisions of SFAS No. 150. The Company has not entered into any financial instruments within the scope of SFAS 150 since May 31, 2003. Management has determined that the Company's Deferrable Capital Securities are subject to the provisions of SFAS No. 150. The transition provisions of SFAS No. 150 require that upon adoption of SFAS No. 150 on July 1, 2003, the Company's Deferrable Capital Securities would be reclassified as a liability from its current mezzanine debt classification. The dividends paid to the holders of the Deferrable Capital Securities will be classified as interest expense on a prospective basis.

     Restricted Assets: As part of a modified coinsurance agreement with Employers Reinsurance Corporation, American Founders is holding $167.5 million of assets for the benefit of Employers, of which $165.7 million are included in fixed maturities available for sale herein. Additionally, we have pledged investments having a market value of $169.5 million to the Federal Home Loan Bank.

     Income per Share. Basic EPS is computed by dividing income available to common shareholders by the weighted average common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS is calculated by adding to shares outstanding the additional net effect of potentially dilutive securities or contracts which could be exercised or converted into common shares except when the additional shares would produce anti-dilutive results.

4

     Reconciliation of net loss available to common shareholders and average shares outstanding for the three and six months ending June 30, 2003 and 2002 are as follows:

     Earnings per share for discontinued operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 are as follows:

     Stock-Based Compensation: In December 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure. This statement is effective for 2003 and amends SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," by providing alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, SFAS No. 148 requires additional disclosures related to the effect of stock-based compensation on reported results. As allowed by SFAS No. 123, the Company has elected to continue to apply the intrinsic-value-based method of accounting for stock-based compensation and has adopted only the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123. The following table illustrates the effect on net loss if the fair-value-based method had been applied to all outstanding and unvested awards in each period.

5

Note B-Commitments and Contingencies

Securities Litigation

      In 2001, Vesta settled a securities class action that had been pending since 1998. In connection with that settlement, the issuer of our primary directors' and officers' insurance policy, which was intended to cover the initial $25 million of settlement costs and related expenses, denied coverage and refused to fund its share of the settlement costs. We sued that insurer in Alabama state court alleging that its action was taken in bad faith. In February 2003, we settled that claim and collected $16 million in cash, which was reflected in the 2002 consolidated financial statements.

Health insurance related lawsuits

      Vesta and two former officers of Vesta are defendants in a lawsuit styled James H. Cashion, Jr. d/b/a American Health Underwriters v. Vesta Insurance Group, Inc., et al, Plaintiff, a former general agent of our subsidiary States General Life Insurance Company, which we purchased in 2001, alleges that the defendants engaged in an actionable civil conspiracy to tortiously interfere with his agency contracts. The civil conspiracy claim is premised, in part, on certain payments made to these two former officers of Vesta by another agent who replaced Mr. Cashion. The plaintiff is seeking actual and punitive damages. Vesta denies tortiously interfering with plaintiff's agency contract, believes the claims asserted against it have no merit, and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. In the opinion of management, resolution of this lawsuit is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

      During the second quarter of 2003, we entered into a settlement and release agreement with Jimmy Walker, a former agent of States General. Pursuant to this settlement and release agreement, we voluntarily dismissed the arbitration and litigation that we had earlier commenced against Mr. Walker and released him from his obligation to repay certain indebtedness owed to under a series of promissory notes representing amounts Mr. Walker borrowed from us in connection with his agency activities. Pursuant to this settlement agreement, Mr. Walker unconditionally assigned to us certain commissions to which he would otherwise be entitled under his former agent's agreement with States General and released us from any claims that he could assert against us arising from such agent's agreement. At June 30, 2003, the net realizable amount of the assigned commissions to the Company was $1.3 million and is recorded as a component of other invested assets on the accompanying interim consolidated balance sheet.

Life insurance related lawsuits

      Our subsidiary, American Founders, is a defendant in a lawsuit brought by a judgment creditor of IFS Holdings, Inc. - the former holder of American Founders' series A and C preferred stock - alleging that American Founders redeemed its Series A and Series C preferred stock from IFS Holdings, Inc. for less than "reasonably equivalent value," and, therefore, engaged in a voidable fraudulent transfer. American Founders believes (i) that the redemption transaction was for reasonably equivalent value; and (ii) that the allegations brought against it in this lawsuit are without merit. We have vigorously defended this action. In the opinion of management, resolution of the lawsuit is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, depending upon the amount and timing, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could materially affect American Founders' future operations or cash flows in a particular period.

Indemnification Agreements and Liability Insurance

      Pursuant to Delaware law and our by-laws, we are obligated to indemnify our current and former officers and directors for certain liabilities arising from their employment with or services to Vesta, provided that their conduct complied with certain requirements. Pursuant to these obligations, we have been funding costs of defense and other expenses on behalf of certain current and former officers and directors, subject to an undertaking from such individuals to repay any amounts advanced in the event a court determines that they are not entitled to indemnification.

Reinsurance Arbitration/Litigation

      As discussed in previous SEC filings, in 1998 we corrected our accounting for assumed reinsurance business through restatement of our previously issued financial statements. Similar corrections were made on a statutory accounting basis through recording cumulative adjustments in Vesta Fire's 1997 statutory financial statements. The impact of this correction has been reflected in amounts ceded under our 20 percent whole account quota share treaty which was terminated on June 30, 1998 on a run-off basis. We believe such treatment is appropriate under the terms of this treaty and have calculated the quarterly reinsurance billings presented to the three treaty participants accordingly. The aggregate amount included herein as recoverable from such reinsurers totaled $33.4 million at June 30, 2003. Additionally, we have previously collected approximately $48.5 million from the drawdown of collateral on hand. Such amount, net of related expenses, has been reflected in the 2002 financial statements.

     NRMA Insurance Ltd. ("NRMA"), one of the participants in the 20 percent whole account quota share treaty, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama contesting our billings. NRMA sought rescission of the treaty and a temporary restraining order preventing us from drawing down approximately $34.5 million of collateral. We filed a demand for arbitration as provided for in the treaty and also filed a motion to compel arbitration which was granted in the United States District Court action. Vesta reached an agreement with NRMA to collect the $34.5 million of collateral in exchange for posting a $25 million letter of credit in favor of NRMA to fund any amounts NRMA may recover as a result of the arbitration. We also filed for arbitration against Alfa Mutual Insurance Company and Dorinco Reinsurance Company, the other two participants on the treaty. All those arbitrations are in the discovery stages. Additionally, Alfa filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment asking the arbitration panel to order that there is no enforceable agreement between Alfa and Vesta or alternatively, that there is no coverage for developmental losses under the treaty. After a hearing in June 2002, the arbitration panel denied Alfa's motion. The hearing on the merits of the arbitration with Alfa was scheduled for May 2003. However, on April 21, 2003, Alfa filed a lawsuit against Vesta Fire in state court in Montgomery, Alabama seeking a declaration from the Court on certain procedural and organizational matters and requesting that the Court stay the arbitration proceedings during the pendency of the litigation in state court in Alabama. On April 24, 2003, the Court issued a temporary restraining order staying the proceedings in the ongoing arbitration in order to maintain the status quo until the merits of Alfa's petition can be heard and determined, which is currently scheduled for September 24, 2003. The lawsuit filed by Alfa will delay indefinitely the Alfa arbitration proceedings but is not currently expected to delay proceedings in the other two arbitrations. On June 19, 2002, the panel in the NRMA arbitration issued an order to bifurcate the arbitration, and scheduled a hearing for the week of October 28, 2002 to decide the issue of coverage for developmental losses under the treaty. On September 6, 2002, the panel notified the parties that it would make such determination on this specific issue on the papers and filings submitted by the parties without the necessity of a live hearing. On November 6, 2002, the Company was notified by the panel that it ruled that the treaty does not apply to loss occurrences prior to July 1, 1997. As a result, Vesta recorded a $23.6 million pre-tax charge as a revision of our estimated reinsurance recoverable in the third quarter of 2002. This ruling does not set a binding precedent regarding Vesta's other arbitrations and, accordingly, we have not recorded any change in our estimate of our recoverable from the other treaty participants as a result of this ruling. In February 2003, Vesta filed a petition to vacate the NRMA panel ruling in the U.S. District Court for

6

the Northern District of Alabama. On April 8, 2003, the Court ruled that since the arbitration proceedings have not been fully exhausted, it was dismissing Vesta's petition without prejudice of the parties to seek the Court's review of any final arbitration award. The hearing in the NRMA arbitration is currently scheduled to begin on October 20, 2003, and is estimated to take approximately two weeks. On December 16, 2002, Dorinco filed a motion seeking an order that the treaty does not cover developmental losses. On May 1, 2003, the panel in the Dorinco arbitration ruled that Dorinco is not responsible for losses on any policy or any other insurance or reinsurance contract terminated prior to July 1, 1997 and that the arbitration will continue with respect to losses whenever occurring, on policies or any other insurance or reinsurance contract in force at July 1, 1997. The hearing in the Dorinco arbitration is currently scheduled to begin on December 1, 2003, and is estimated to take approximately two weeks. Based on a current estimate of the impact of this ruling and the ruling previously received from the NRMA panel, we currently believe our estimated recoverable is appropriate. However, we are continuing to evaluate the effects of complying with these rulings and our estimate may change in the future as a result of this evaluation.

      While management continues to believe its interpretation of the treaty's terms and computations based thereon are correct, these matters are being contested in these arbitration proceedings and their ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time. If rescission on all three treaties was awarded by three separate arbitration panels, we would incur a pre-tax charge of approximately $57.0 million.

      If the amounts recoverable under the relevant treaties are ultimately determined to be materially less than the amounts that we have reported as recoverable, we may incur a significant, material, and adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

      We are in arbitration with CIGNA Property and Casualty Insurance Company (now ACE USA) under a personal lines insurance quota share reinsurance agreement, whereby we assumed certain risks from CIGNA. During September 2000, CIGNA filed for arbitration under the reinsurance agreement, seeking payment of the balances that CIGNA claimed were due under the terms of the treaty. At that time, the treaty was terminated on a cut-off basis. In the pending arbitration Vesta is seeking, among other things, recoupment of all believed improper excessive expense allocations and charges from CIGNA. The arbitration was bifurcated into two phases with Phase I concentrating on the interpretation of the intent of the parties related to the expense reimbursement provisions of the treaty at the time it was entered. Phase II, which is ongoing, relates to any remaining issues between the parties, including those that exist with regard to an audit of expenses ceded to the treaty. The Phase I hearing was held in February 2002 and the panel ruled that (i) the Company is responsible for the payment of ceding commissions provided for in the treaty and should pay any outstanding billings for commissions and paid claims, plus interest; (ii) the Company may proceed with an audit of expenses ceded to the treaty; and (iii) the parties should identify any further issues to be brought before the arbitration panel for phase two of the hearing. Vesta is presently conducting its expense audit as permitted by the panel. During the course of preparing for and conducting the expense audit, the Company determined that it should revise its estimated reinsurance receivable and record during the second quarter of 2003 a pre-tax valuation allowance of $9.4 million and recorded the valuation allowance as a component of discontinued operations. Management intends to continue to proceed with the presentation of our case to the arbitration panel and believes that the resolution of this arbitration will not have any adverse financial impact on the Company. The Phase II hearing has not yet been scheduled.

     Muhl vs. Vesta is a case pending in the supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, brought by the Liquidator of Midland Insurance Company ("Midland"), claiming recoveries under two alleged retrocession agreements (Pool I and Pool III) between Midland and Interstate Fire Insurance Company, Vesta's predecessor in interest. The Liquidator's claims against Vesta under Pool I and Pool III have been severed.

      Third party auditors hired by Vesta have identified coverage issues that cast doubt on the validity of a number of claims. In addition, there is no actual retrocessional agreement that evidences the terms and conditions of Pool III which involves 71% or more of the incurred losses at issue. Although there are other tangential documents that the Liquidator may attempt to rely on to prove liability under Pool III, we believe that the Liquidator will not be able to establish liability for any portion of the Pool III claims. We also believe that a number of the losses allegedly incurred in connection with Pool I may be avoided on specific coverage grounds. We are defending this matter vigorously and are reasonably optimistic regarding the ultimate outcome, although an adverse ruling in this case could have a material effect on our financial condition.

      Nichols vs. Vesta Fire Insurance Corporation is a lawsuit brought by the Liquidator of Delta America Re Insurance Company in Kentucky state court to recover losses alleged under reinsurance contracts entered into in the 1970's. Vesta removed the action to federal court and successfully moved to compel arbitration. Each party has selected a party arbitrator but as yet there is no neutral umpire. There has been no discovery as yet and no organizational meeting of the panel.

      Vesta vs. New Cap Re is an arbitration against an Australian reinsurer, to collect reinsurance recoverables pursuant to two accident year excess of loss ratio reinsurance agreements. In the arbitration, New Cap Re challenged Vesta's earlier draw on a Letter of Credit for $7.5 million which was held in connection with one of the two contracts. Shortly after the arbitration commenced, New Cap Re became the subject of insolvency proceedings in Australia and an ancillary proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York. The Bankruptcy Court stayed all pending litigation and arbitration against New Cap Re, and we appealed that ruling to the Southern District of New York, and ultimately to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which recently affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's stay of the arbitration against New Cap Re. Hence, our efforts to recover losses as well as New Cap Re's efforts to challenge the earlier draw on the $7.5 million Letter of Credit by us are stayed.

      On September 5, 2002, New Cap Re served us with an Application pursuant to Section 588FF of the Australian Corporations Act seeking an order directing us to pay New Cap Re and its liquidator $1.0 million that Vesta allegedly received as an "unfair preference" and/or arising out of an "uncommercial transaction," as those terms are defined by the Corporations Act. We filed a Notice of Appearance on October 31, 2002. While management intends to vigorously defend this matter, given the preliminary nature of these proceedings, it is too early to evaluate the likelihood of success.

Other

      Vesta, through its subsidiaries, is routinely a party to pending or threatened legal proceedings and arbitration relating to the regular conduct of its insurance business. These proceedings involve alleged breaches of contract, torts, including bad faith and fraud claims and miscellaneous other specified relief. Based upon information presently available, and in light of legal and other defenses available to Vesta and its subsidiaries, management does not consider liability from any threatened or pending litigation regarding routine matters to be material.

7

Credit Facilities

      Effective February 1, 2003, we entered into a new revolving credit arrangement with First Commercial to replace the previous facility. The new facility is a $30 million line secured by a pledge of 358,375 shares of common stock of Instant Insurance Holdings, Inc. (Instant), representing approximately 70% of Instant's issued and outstanding shares of capital stock as of December 31, 2002. The new facility bears interest at First Commercial's prime rate and will mature no earlier than June 30, 2005. As of June 30, 2003, we had drawn $29.8 million available under this Agreement.

      This new credit agreement contains covenants which require us to maintain (i) consolidated GAAP net income (excluding realized gains and losses) of at least $15 million for any calendar year, beginning in 2003, (ii) Consolidated debt to capital ratio of no more than 39%, (iii) an A.M. Best rating of "B" or better, (iv) consolidated GAAP net worth of at least $208 million, (v) an interest coverage ratio of not less than 1.5 to 1 and (vi) risk-based capital of not less than 150% of the NAIC's authorized control level. As of June 30, 2003, we were in compliance with all quarterly covenants. However, based on our results through the first six months of 2003, we believe that uncertainty exists regarding our ability to meet certain of the First Commercial credit arrangement covenants at December 31, 2003. Furthermore, current dividend levels from Vesta Fire and J. Gordon Gaines would not be sufficient to repay the anticipated outstanding balance of this credit facility at the year-end covenant measurement date without seeking prior approval. Although management believes the Company would be able to secure waivers on any covenant violations, the failure to obtain such waivers of the potential covenant violations or refinance the credit facility on similar terms could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition.

Note C-Segment Information

      We report financial results according to five business segments, which are distinguished by their product offerings or business activities. The accounting policies of the operating segments are described in Note A in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2002. Segment pre-tax income (loss) is generally income from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest and deferrable capital security distributions. Premiums, policy fees, other income, loss and benefit expenses, operating expenses and policy acquisition expenses are attributed directly to each operating segment. Net investment income and interest expense are allocated only to those segments for which such amounts are considered an integral part of the financial results for that segment.

      A brief description of each segment is as follows:

Standard property-casualty segment

      The standard property-casualty segment consists of two principal lines of business: (1) underwriting residential property insurance in capacity constrained states; and (2) underwriting residential property and automobile insurance in states where we can profitably offer both products through independent agents. Vesta's insurance products are distributed primarily through approximately 2,475 independent agencies in 16 states. Our residential property lines target families (1) with multiple insurance policies; (2) who own more than one automobile; and (3) who live in a home valued between $100,000 and $250,000. Our standard personal auto line targets drivers over age thirty-five with above average driving records.

Life insurance segment

      We provide a variety of life insurance products through American Founders Financial Corporation, a holding company for two life insurance companies domiciled in Texas. In 2000, we purchased a 72% interest in American Founders. On February 18, 2003, we purchased the remaining shares held by minority holders and now own 100% of American Founders. At June 30, 2003, American Founders had in force approximately $1.8 billion (face value) of life and annuity products. American Founders markets traditional life products, universal life products, fixed-rate annuities, pension contracts and related products through independent agents located throughout the U.S. In the fourth quarter of 2002, we decided to exit the health insurance business line which was previously included in the life insurance segment. The results for the health insurance line have been reclassified to discontinued operations for all periods presented in this report. See Note F.

Non-standard underwriting segment

      Our non-standard underwriting segment consists of two lines of business: (1) underwriting non-standard auto insurance products sold by our affiliated agency operations and (2) underwriting non-standard auto insurance sold by unaffiliated agencies. In each of these lines of business, we utilize quota share reinsurance to minimize our exposure to loss. The non-standard underwriting segment includes our fronting operations and any underwriting risk retained from premiums written through our non-standard auto agencies.

      With respect to fronting arrangements, we write property-casualty insurance coverages and reinsure substantially all of the risks to reinsurers in exchange for fees. This business takes advantage of our certificates of authority granting us license to write insurance in many states. Income from fronting arrangements is primarily generated on a fee-for-service basis. For the premium written through our non-standard auto agencies, we determine, based upon market conditions and the prospective results of the underlying business, whether to keep 100% of the underwriting risk or reinsure this risk to various reinsurers. Our decision on how much underwriting risk to retain is dependent on the current rating environment and the amount of commissions offered by the reinsurers.

Non-standard agency segment

      Our non-standard agency segment does not engage in underwriting activities. The primary focus of our agency segment is the distribution of non-standard auto insurance products for various retail and wholesale insurance carriers in exchange for commissions and fees. Our non-standard agencies primarily target (1) individuals specifically required by law to purchase auto insurance; (2) individuals with accidents or violations on their driving records; (3) new drivers; and (4) drivers of high-performance vehicles. Typically, non-standard auto insurance customers are considered higher-risk than standard customers, and premiums for non-standard insurance are generally more expensive.

Corporate and other segment

      Our corporate and other segment consists primarily of (1) net income earned on investments; (2) interest expenses associated with corporate debt; (3) financial results for a small life insurance agency; and (4) overhead expenses not directly associated with any other business segment.

8

      A summary of segment results for the three months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 is as follows:

9

     A summary of segment results for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 is as follows: