SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Quarter Ended September 30, 2007March 31, 2008

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

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

Yes  x                    NO  No  ¨

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

Large accelerated filer  x                Accelerated filer  ¨                Non-accelerated filer  ¨                Smaller reporting company  ¨

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in the Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES  

Yes  ¨    NO                    No  x

At October 31, 2007,April 30, 2008, the Registrant had issued and outstanding an aggregate of 54,721,50154,729,913 shares of its Common Stock.

PART 1—I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

Amounts expressed in thousands, except share data

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

2

MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(Unaudited)

Three Months Ended March 31,

Amounts expressed in thousands, except share and per share data

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

3

MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

Three Months Ended March 31,

Amounts expressed in thousands except share and per share data

Effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN No. 48”). FIN No. 48 provides guidance on financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return related to uncertainties in income taxes. FIN No. 48 prescribes a “more-likely-than-not” recognition threshold that must be met before a tax benefit can be recognized in the financial statements. For a tax position that meets the recognition threshold, the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement is recognized in the financial statements.

The Company and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various states. Tax years that remain subject to examination by major taxing jurisdictions are 2004 through 2006 for federal taxes and 2001 through 2006 for California state taxes.

TheThere were no material changes to the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits at implementation of FIN No. 48 as of January 1, 2007, excluding consideration of expected offsetting federal tax benefits and accrued interest expense, was $7,382,000. Of this total, $2,266,000, net of federal tax benefit and including interest expense, represents exposures which, if recognized, would affectduring the Company’s effective tax rate.

10

MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

three months ended March 31, 2008. The Company does not expect any changes in unrecognized tax benefits within the next 12 months to have any significant impact on its consolidated financial statements. The Company recognizes interest and assessed penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as part of income taxes. As of January 1, 2007, the Company had accrued $260,000 of interest related to unrecognized tax benefits. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, the changes in the liability for uncertain tax positions had no material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company is under examination by the state of California taxing authority for tax years 2001, 2002 and 2004. The taxing authority has proposed significant adjustments to the Company’s California tax liabilities. Management does not believe that the ultimate outcome of this examination will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position. However, an unfavorable outcome may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations in the period of such resolution.

10

6. Recently Issued Accounting StandardsMERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

In September 2006,March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities-an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133” (“SFAS No. 157”161”). SFAS No. 157 provides161 amends SFAS No. 133 by requiring expanded disclosures about an entity’s derivative instruments and hedging activities, but does not change the scope of accounting of SFAS No. 133. SFAS No. 161 requires increased qualitative disclosures such as how and why an entity is using a single definition ofderivative instrument; how the entity is accounting for its derivative instrument and hedged items under SFAS No. 133 and its related interpretations; and how the instrument affects the entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. Quantitative disclosures should include information about the fair value together with a framework for measuring it,of the derivative instruments, including gains and requires additional disclosurelosses, and should contain more detailed information about the uselocation of fair valuethe derivative instrument in the entity’s financial statements. Credit-risk disclosures should include information about the existence and nature of credit-risk-related contingent features included in derivative instruments. Credit-risk-related contingent features can be defined as those that require entities, upon the occurrence of a credit event such as a credit rating downgrade, to measure assets and liabilities.settle derivative instruments or post collateral. SFAS No. 157 emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement, and sets out a fair value hierarchy with the highest priority being quoted prices in active markets. SFAS No. 157161 is effective on January 1, 2009 for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years.the Company. The Company is currently assessing the impact of adopting SFAS No. 157161 on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities—Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115” (“SFAS No. 159”). SFAS No. 159 permits an entity to measure certain financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value. The main objective of SFAS No. 159 is to improve financial reporting by allowing entities to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by the measurement of related assets and liabilities using different attributes, without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. Entities that elect the fair value option will report unrealized gains and losses in earnings at each subsequent reporting date. SFAS No. 159 establishes presentation and disclosure requirements to help financial statement users understand the effect of the entity’s election on its earnings, but does not eliminate disclosure requirements of other accounting standards. SFAS No. 159 is expected to expand the use of fair value measurement, which is consistent with the FASB’s long-term measurement objectives for accounting for financial instruments. SFAS No. 159 is effective as of the beginning of the first fiscal year that begins after November 15, 2007. The Company is currently assessing the impact of adopting SFAS No. 159 on its consolidated financial statements.disclosures.

11

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

General

The operating results of property and casualty insurance companies are subject to significant quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year fluctuations due to the effect of competition on pricing, the frequency and severity of losses, natural disasters, general economic conditions, the general regulatory environment in those states in which an insurer operates, state regulation of premium rates, and other factors such as changes in tax laws. The property and casualty industry has been highly cyclical, with periods of high premium rates and shortages of underwriting capacity followed by periods of severe price competition and excess capacity. These cycles can have a large impact on the ability of the Company to grow and retain business.

The Company utilizes standard industry measures to report operating results that may not be presented in accordance with GAAP. Included within Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations isare non-GAAP financial measures, net premiums written, a non-GAAP financial measure, which represents the premiums charged on policies issued during a fiscal period less any reinsurance. This measure isreinsurance, and operating income, which represents net income excluding realized investment gains and losses, net of tax, and adjustments for other significant non-recurring, infrequent or unusual items. These measures are not intended to replace, and should be read in conjunction with, the Company’s GAAP financial results and isare reconciled to the most directly comparable GAAP measure,measures, earned premiums and net income, respectively, below in Results of Operations.

The Company is headquartered in Los Angeles, California and operates primarily as a personal automobile insurer, selling policies through a network of independent producers. The Company also offers homeowners insurance, mechanical breakdown insurance, commercial and dwelling fire insurance, umbrella insurance, commercial automobile insurance and commercial property insurance. Private passenger automobile lines of insurance accounted for approximately 84% of the Company’s $2,282$729 million of net written premiums in the first ninethree months of 2007.2008.

The Company operates primarily in California, the only state in which it operated prior to 1990. The Company has since expanded its operations into the following states: Georgia and Illinois (1990), Oklahoma and Texas (1996), Florida (1998), Virginia and New York (2001), New Jersey (2003), and Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada (2004). California accounted for approximately 77%79% and 73%76% of the Company’s net written premiums during the ninethree months ended September 30,March 31, 2008 and 2007, and 2006, respectively.

In February 2008, the Company acquired an 88,300 square foot office building in Folsom, California for approximately $18.4 million. The building will be used to house the Company’s northern California employees when the existing lease expires on the building that they currently occupy. The Company financed the transaction through an $18 million unsecured bank loan. The loan matures on March 1, 2013 with interest payable quarterly at an annual floating rate of LIBOR plus 50 basis points. On March 3, 2008, the Company entered into an interest rate swap of its floating LIBOR rate plus 50 basis points on the loan for a fixed rate of 4.25%. The swap agreement terminates on March 1, 2013.

Regulatory and Litigation Matters

The Department of Insurance (“DOI”) in each state in which the Company operates conducts periodic financial and market conduct examinations of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries domiciled within the respective state. The GeorgiaCalifornia DOI conductedis conducting a financial examination of the Company’s GeorgiaCalifornia insurance subsidiariescompanies for the period January 1, 20012004 through December 31, 2003. No material matters were noted in the final report of this examination issued in July 2007. The Virginia DOI conducted a market conduct examination of Mercury Casualty Company in 2007 for the period of January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006. No material matters were noted in the final report of this examination issued in August 2007. The California DOI is also conducting a rating and underwriting examination of the business written in California in the 2004, 2005, and 2006 underwriting years. The examinationGeorgia DOI is in its early stages. The California DOI has notified the Company that it will begin itsconducting a financial examination of the Company duringCompany’s Georgia insurance subsidiaries for the 4^th quarterperiod January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006. In addition, the Illinois DOI is conducting a market conduct examination of 2007.the business written in Illinois in the 2007 underwriting year. No reports have yet been issued on these examinations.

12

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, theThe Company made a rate filing in August 2006 that reduced the territorial impact of its rates and requested a small overall rate increase. AdditionalThe California DOI approved the August 2006 filing in January 2008, which resulted in a small rate increase for two of the California insurance subsidiaries and a small decrease for a third, for a total net rate reduction of approximately 2.5%. The newly approved rates went into effect in April 2008, bringing the Company close to full compliance with the regulations. However, additional rate filings will be required during the two year phase-in period. The DOI has not yet approvedperiod to fully comply with the August 2006 filing, nor is there any assurance that it will.new regulations. 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.

12

In April 2007, new regulations governing the approval of property and casualty insurance rates became effective in California. These regulationsthat generally tighten the existing Proposition 103 prior approval ratemaking regime primarily by establishing a maximum allowable rate of return of currently 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 new regulations allow for the California DOI to grant a number of variances based on loss prevention, business mix, service to underserved communities, and other factors. In October 2007, the California DOI invited comments from consumer groups and the insurance industry in an effort to set appropriate standards for granting or denying specific variances and to provide sufficient instruction regarding what information or data to submit when an insurer is applying for a specific variance. The comment period ended on November 16, 2007. The California DOI then published proposed amendments to its regulations and held an informal workshop on them on April 7, 2008. On April 21, 2008, the Commissioner of the California DOI issued a notice that he would file the proposed amendments, on an emergency basis, with the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) on or after April 26, 2008. On April 29, 2008, the Commissioner issued a new notice reflecting slight modifications to the proposed emergency regulations and superseding the prior version. These can be filed with the OAL on or after May 3, 2008. The Company is not able to predict whether the OAL will treat the amendments as appropriate for emergency action or when it will otherwise act on them. Because the actual administration of the regulations determines their practical impact, the Company is not able to predict how they will affect it upon enactment. In addition, the Company is aware that other companies are challenging the regulations. The Company is monitoring the progress of those challenges.

In July 2007, the California DOI issued Orders to Show Cause and Statements of Charges and Accusations (the “OSCs”) alleging that the Company has engaged in and continues to engage in claims handling acts and practices in violation of California Insurance Code sections 790et seqand other regulations. The California DOI is seeking penalties for each violation. The California DOI is also seeking (a) a suspension of the California Companies’ Certificates of Authority for a period not to exceed one year for acts in violation of Section 700(c) and 704 of the California Insurance Code, (b) a finding that breaches of contract have occurred with a specification of the amount of actual damages sustained as a result of the breaches and (c) restitution on behalf of those allegedly harmed by the acts alleged in the OSCs. On January 31,August 10, 2007, the Company filed a Notice of Defense in response which generally and specifically denied the allegations of the OSCs. A hearing on the matter is tentatively set to commence on June 16, 2008. The Company is currently engaged in a settlement discussion with the California DOI. The Company does not believe that it has done anything to warrant any of the penalties or remedies sought by the California DOI.

In March 2006, the Florida Financial Services Commission approved new regulations requiring insurers to submit informationCalifornia DOI issued an Amended Notice of Non-Compliance (“NNC”) to the Florida OfficeNNC originally issued in February 2004 alleging that the Company charged rates in violation of the California Insurance Regulation (“OIR”) regardingCode, 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. Through this action, 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 credit reportsan unapproved rate, rating plan or rating system. Further, the California DOI seeks to impose a penalty for each and credit scoresevery date on which the Company allegedly used a misleading advertisement alleged in establishing rules, rates or underwriting guidelines. Under the regulations, any insurerNNC. Finally, based

13

upon the conduct alleged, the California DOI also contends that uses credit scores or credit reportsthe Company acted fraudulently in filingviolation of Section 704(a) of the California Insurance Code, which permits the California Commissioner of Insurance to suspend certificates of authority for a new rule, rate or underwriting guideline will be requiredperiod of one year. The Company filed a Notice of Defense in response to provide information sufficient to demonstrate that its credit scoring methodologythe NNC. The Company does not disproportionately affect persons of any particular race, color, religion, marital status, age, gender, income levelbelieve that it has done anything to warrant a monetary penalty from the California DOI. The San Francisco Superior Court, inRobert 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 place of residence. The regulations were challenged by several insurance industry trade associations and were recently struck down by a Florida Administrative Law Judge. However, the OIR has subsequently proposed the regulations again.

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 the state if they write homeowners policies in any other state.form of retrospective monetary relief based on the same facts and legal theory. The matter is currently in discovery and a hearing before the administrative law also expands the availability of reinsurance through the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, requires rate filingsjudge has been scheduled 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 has made the rate filings required by the new law, and is prepared to comply with all provisions as they become effective. The initial rate impact of the new law has not met the expectations of some Florida governmental leaders, and the law may therefore be subject to further enhancements in the next legislative session. The Company is closely monitoring these developments.

Inheld October 2007, Florida’s personal injury protection (“PIP”) expired as a required coverage. The Florida legislature failed to renew the requirement that automobile insurers offer PIP coverage during its regular session. Subsequently, the Governor has signed a new bill that will reinstate PIP as a required coverage effective January 1,6, 2008. The Company will continue to offer PIP for new and renewal businesses as an optional coverage through December 31, 2007.

The Company is not able to determine the impact of any of the legal and regulatory changesmatters described above. However, itIt is possible that the impact of some of the changes could adversely affect the Company and its operating results.results, however, the ultimate outcome is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position.

The California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) has audited the 1997 through 2002 and 2004 tax returns and accepted the 1997 through 2000 returns to be correct as filed. The Company received a notice of examination for the 2003 tax return from the FTB in January 2008. For the Company’s 2001, 2002, and 2004 tax returns, the FTB has taken exception to the state apportionment factors used by the Company. Specifically, the FTB has asserted that payroll and property factors from Mercury Insurance Services, LLC, a subsidiary of Mercury Casualty Company, that are excluded from the Mercury General California Franchise tax return, should be included in the California apportionment factors. In addition, for the 2004 tax return, the FTB has asserted that a portion of management fee expenses paid by Mercury Insurance Services, LLC should be disallowed. Based on these assertions, the FTB has issued notices of proposed tax assessments for the 2001, 2002 and 2004 tax years totaling approximately $5 million. The Company strongly disagrees with the position taken by the FTB and plans to formally appeal the assessments before the California State Board of Equalization (“SBE”). An unfavorable ruling against the Company may have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations in the period of such ruling. Management believes that the issue will ultimately be resolved in favor of the Company. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail on this matter.

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 which the Company is able to estimate its potential exposure and the likelihood that the court will rule against the Company is probable. The Company vigorously defends these actions, unless a reasonable settlement appears appropriate. An unfavorable ruling against the Company in the actions currently pending may, but is not likely to, have a material impact on the Company’s quarterly results of operations; however, it is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position. For a further discussion of the Company’s pending material litigation, see Item 1. Legal Proceedings in Part II – Other Information of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.2007.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Reserves

The preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements requires judgment and estimates. The most significant is the estimate of loss reserves as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 60, “Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises” (“SFAS No. 60”), and Statement of Financial Accounting

13

Standards No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies” (“SFAS No. 5”). Estimating loss reserves is a difficult process as many factors can ultimately affect the final settlement of a claim, and therefore, the reserve that is required. Changes in the regulatory and legal environment, results of litigation, medical costs, the cost of repair materials and labor rates, among other factors, can each impact ultimate claim costs. In addition, time can be a critical part of reserving determinations since the longer the span between the incidence of a loss and the payment or settlement of the claim, the more variable the ultimate settlement amount can be. Accordingly, short-tail claims, such as property damage claims, tend to be more reasonably predictable than long-tail liability claims, such as bodily injury claims. Inflation is reflected in the reserving process through analysis of cost trends and reviews of historical reserving results.

14

The Company engages independent actuarial consultants to review the Company’s reserves and to provide the annual actuarial opinions required under state statutory accounting requirements. The Company does not rely on actuarial consultants for GAAP reporting or periodic report disclosure purposes. The Company analyzes loss reserves internally on a quarterly basis using primarily the incurred loss development, average severity and claim count development methods described below. The Company also uses the paid loss development method to analyze loss adjustment expense reserves and at times uses industry claims data as part of its reserve analysis. When deciding which methodologies to use in estimating its reserves, the Company evaluates the credibility of each methodology based on the maturity of the data available and the claims settlement practices for each particular line of business or coverage within a line of business. When establishing the reserve, the Company will generally analyze the results from all of the methods used rather than relying on one method over the others. While these methodologies are designed to determine the ultimate losses on claims under the Company’s policies, there is inherent uncertainty in all actuarial models since they generally use historical data to project outcomes. The Company believes that the techniques it uses provide a reasonable basis in estimating loss reserves.

The incurred loss development method analyzes historical incurred case loss (case reserves plus paid losses) development to estimate ultimate losses. The Company applies development factors against current incurred case losses by accident period to calculate ultimate expected losses. The Company believes that the incurred loss development method provides a reasonable basis for evaluating ultimate losses, particularly in the Company’s larger, more established lines of business which have a long operating history. The average severity method analyzes historical loss payments and/or incurred losses divided by closed claims and/or total claims to calculate an estimated average cost per claim. From this, the expected ultimate average cost per claim can be estimated. The claim count development method analyzes historical claim count development to estimate future incurred claim count development for current claims. The Company applies these development factors against current claim counts by accident period to calculate ultimate expected claim counts. The average severity method coupled with the claim count development method provides meaningful information regarding inflation and frequency trends that the Company believes is useful in establishing reserves. The paid loss development method analyzes historical payment patterns to estimate the amount of losses yet to be paid. The Company primarily uses this method for loss adjustment expenses because specific case reserves are not established for loss adjustment expenses.

The Company uses varying methods and assumptions in states with little operating history where there is insufficient claims data to prepare a reserve analysis relying solely on the Company’s historical data. In these cases, the Company may project ultimate losses using industry average loss data or based on expected loss ratios. As the Company develops an operating history in these states, the Company will rely increasingly on the incurred loss development and average severity and claim count development methods. The Company analyzes catastrophe losses separately from non-catastrophe losses. For these losses, the Company determines claim counts based on claims reported and development expectations from previous catastrophes and applies an average expected loss per claim based on reserves established by adjusters and average losses on previous catastrophes.

At September 30, 2007,March 31, 2008, the Company recorded its point estimate of approximately $1,098$1,043 million in loss and loss adjustment expense reserves which includes approximately $321$309 million of incurred but not reported (“IBNR”) loss reserves. IBNR includes estimates, based upon past experience, of ultimate developed costs which may differ from case estimates, unreported claims which occurred on or prior to September 30, 2007March 31, 2008 and estimated future payments for reopened claims. Management believes that the liability for losses and loss adjustment expenses is adequate to cover the ultimate net cost of losses and loss adjustment expenses incurred to date; however, since the provisions are necessarily based upon estimates, the ultimate liability may be more or less than such provision.

The Company reevaluates its reserves quarterly. When management determines that the estimated ultimate claim cost requires reduction for previously reported accident years, positive development occurs and a reduction in

14

losses and loss adjustment expenses is reported in the current period. If the estimated ultimate claim cost requires an increase for previously reported accident years, negative development occurs and an increase in losses and loss adjustment expenses is reported in the current period. For the ninethree months ended September 30, 2007,March 31, 2008, the Company reported negativepositive development of approximately $15$5 million on the 20062007 and prior accident years’ loss and loss adjustment expense reserves which at December 31, 20062007 totaled approximately $1,089 million.$1.1 billion. The loss development included approximately $18$5 million of negative development from the California operations and approximately $3$10 million of positive development from the operations outside of California. The negative development from California operations resulted primarily from increases in the personal automobile loss severity estimates for the 2007 accident

15

year. The positive development from operations outside of California resultedcame primarily from several factors, including a greater numberFlorida and New Jersey operations. The development was largely the result of reported California automobile claims than was anticipated at December 31, 2006decreases in loss severity estimates, particularly in the bodily injury coverage, for the 2007 and adverse development on prior accident years’ loss reserves for California homeowners business.years.

For a further discussion of the Company’s reserving methods, see the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.2007.

Premiums

The Company complies with SFAS No. 60 in recognizing revenue on insurance policies written. The Company’s insurance premiums are recognized as income ratably over the term of the policies, that is, in proportion to the amount of insurance protection provided. Unearned premiums are carried as a liability on the balance sheet and are computed on a monthly pro-rata basis. The Company evaluates its unearned premiums periodically for premium deficiencies by comparing the sum of expected claim costs, unamortized acquisition costs and maintenance costs to related unearned premiums, net of investment income. To the extent that any of the Company’s lines of business become substantially unprofitable, a premium deficiency reserve may be required. The Company does not expect this to occur on any of its significant lines of business.

Investments

The Company carries itsBeginning January 1, 2008, all of the Company’s fixed maturity and equity investments are classified as “trading” and carried at marketfair value as required by SFAS No. 115, “Accounting for securitiesCertain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities” (“SFAS No. 115”), as amended, and SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“SFAS No. 159”). Prior to January 1, 2008, the Company’s fixed maturity and equity investment portfolios were classified either as “Available“available for Sale”sale” or “trading” and “Trading” bycarried at fair value under SFAS No. 115, as amended. In most cases, market valuations were drawn from trade data sources.The Company adopted SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS No. 157”) and SFAS No. 159 as of the beginning of 2008. See Notes 3 and 4 to the consolidated financial statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. No valuations were made by the Company’s management. Equity holdings, including non-sinking fund preferred stocks, are, with minor exceptions, actively traded on national exchanges or trading markets, and were valued at the last transaction price on the balance sheet date. The Company regularly evaluates its investments for other-than-temporary declines and writes them off as realized losses through the consolidated statements of income, as required by SFAS No. 115, as amended, when declines are deemed to be other-than-temporary. SFAS No. 155 allows the Company to include changes in fair value in earnings on an instrument-by-instrument basis for certain hybrid financial instruments that contain an embedded derivative that would otherwise be required to be bifurcated and accounted for separately under SFAS No. 133. Temporary unrealized gains and losses for investments available for sale, except for those accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and SFAS No. 155, are credited or charged directly to shareholders’ equity as part of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of applicable taxes. It is possible that in the future, information will become available about the Company’s current investments that would require accounting for them as realized losses due to other-than-temporary declines in value. The financial statement effect would be to reclassify the unrealized loss from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) on the consolidated balance sheet to realized investment losses on the consolidated statements of income. Changes in fair value for thoseof the investments accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and SFAS No. 155, as well as for trading securities accounted for under SFAS No. 115, are reflected in net realized investment gains or losses in the consolidated statements of income.income as required under SFAS No. 115, as amended, and SFAS No. 159.

For equity securities, the net loss due to changes in fair value represents approximately 9% of the carrying value of those securities. The primary cause of the losses in fair value of equity securities was the overall decline in the stock markets, which saw a 10% decline in the S&P 500 index during the quarter. For fixed maturity securities, the net loss represents approximately 2% of the carrying value of these securities. The Company believes that the primary cause of the majority of the losses in fair value on fixed maturity securities is a decline in municipal bond prices resulting from liquidity problems in the overall municipal bond markets and credit downgrades or negative outlooks for several municipal bond insurers. The Company intends to hold the majority of its municipal bonds to collect the full principal amount at maturity.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Certain financial assets and financial liabilities are recorded at fair value. The fair value of a financial instrument is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The fair values of the Company’s financial instruments are generally based on, or derived from, executable bid prices. In the case of financial instruments transacted on recognized exchanges, the observable prices represent quotations for completed transactions from the exchange on which the financial instrument is principally traded.

The fair value of all the financial instruments that the Company holds at March 31, 2008 is based on observable market prices, observable market parameters, or is derived from such prices or parameters. The availability of observable market prices and pricing parameters can vary from product to product. Observable market prices and pricing parameters in a product (or a related product) are used to derive a price without requiring significant judgment. The Company’s financial instruments include securities issued by the U.S. government and its

16

agencies, securities issued by states and municipalities, certain corporate and other debt securities, corporate equity securities, and exchange traded funds. The fair value of these products is based principally on observable market prices or is derived using observable market parameters. These products generally do not entail a significant degree of judgment in determining fair value because actively quoted prices or observable pricing parameters are available.

It is possible that certain financial instruments that the Company holds or may acquire may lack observable market prices or market parameters in future periods because they are less actively traded. The fair value of such instruments is determined using techniques appropriate for each particular product. These techniques could involve some degree of judgment. The price transparency of the particular product will determine the degree of judgment involved in determining the fair value of the Company’s financial instruments. Price transparency is affected by a wide variety of factors, including, for example, the type of product, whether it is a new product and not yet established in the marketplace, and the characteristics particular to the transaction. Products for which actively quoted prices or pricing parameters are available or for which fair value is derived from actively quoted prices or pricing parameters will generally have a higher degree of price transparency. By contrast, products that are thinly traded or not quoted will generally have diminished price transparency. Even in normally active markets, the price transparency for actively quoted instruments may be reduced for periods of time during periods of market dislocation. Alternatively, in thinly quoted markets, the participation of market-makers willing to purchase and sell a product provides a source of transparency for products that otherwise are not actively quoted or during periods of market dislocation.

Contingent Liabilities

The Company may have certain known and unknown potential liabilities that are evaluated using the criteria established by SFAS No. 5. These include claims, assessments or lawsuits relating to its business. The Company continually evaluates these potential liabilities and accrues for them and/or discloses them in the notes to the consolidated financial statements if they meet the requirements stated in SFAS No. 5. While it is not possible to know with certainty the ultimate outcome of contingent liabilities, an unfavorable result may have a material impact on the Company’s quarterly results of operations; however, it is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position.

15

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this report on Form 10-Q that are not historical facts constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements may address, among other things, the Company’s strategy for growth, business development, regulatory approvals, market position, expenditures, financial results and reserves. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance and are subject to important factors and events that could cause the Company’s actual business, prospects and results of operations to differ materially from the historical information contained in this Form 10-Q and from those that may be expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, among others: the competition currently existing in the California automobile insurance markets, the Company’s success in expanding its business in states outside of California, the Company’s ability to successfully complete its initiative to standardize its policies and procedures nationwide in all of its functional areas, the impact of potential third party “bad-faith” legislation, changes in laws or regulations, the ultimate outcome of tax position challenges by the California Franchise Tax Board, and decisions of courts, regulators and governmental bodies, particularly in California, the Company’s ability to obtain and the timing of the approval of premium rate changes for private passenger automobile policies issued in states where the Company does business, the investment yields the Company is able to obtain with its investments in comparison to recent yields and the market risk associated with the Company’s investment portfolio, the cyclical and general competitive nature of the property and casualty insurance industry and general uncertainties regarding loss reserve or other estimates, the accuracy and adequacy of the Company’s pricing methodologies, uncertainties related to assumptions and projections generally, inflation and changes in economic conditions, changes in driving patterns and loss trends, acts of war and terrorist activities, court decisions and trends in litigation and health care and auto repair costs, adverse weather conditions or natural disasters in the markets served by the Company, the stability of the Company’s information technology systems and the ability of the Company to execute on its information technology initiatives, and other uncertainties, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the Company’s control. GAAP prescribes when a Company may reserve for particular risks including litigation exposures. Accordingly, results for a given reporting period

17

could be significantly affected if and when a reserve is established for a major contingency. Reported results may therefore appear to be volatile in certain periods. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information or future events or otherwise. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Form 10-Q or, in the case of any document the Company incorporates by reference, the date of that document. Investors also should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all factors and should not consider the risks set forth above to be a complete statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. If the expectations or assumptions underlying the Company’s forward-looking statements prove inaccurate or if risks or uncertainties arise, actual results could differ materially from those predicted in any forward-looking statements. The factors identified above are believed to be some, but not all, of the important factors that could cause actual events and results to be significantly different from those that may be expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements should also be considered in light of the information provided in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20062007 and in Item 1A. Risk Factors in Part II—Other Information of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Results of Operations

Three Months Ended September 30, 2007March 31, 2008 compared to Three Months Ended September 30, 2006March 31, 2007

Premiums earned in the thirdfirst quarter of 20072008 decreased approximately 0.6%4.6% from the corresponding period in 2006.2007. Net premiums written in the thirdfirst quarter of 20072008 decreased approximately 2.2%7.2% from the corresponding period in 2006.2007. Net premiums written onby the Company’s California automobile lines of businessoperations were $521.5$575.6 million in the thirdfirst quarter of 2007,2008, a 2.1% increase4.2% decrease over the corresponding period in 2006.2007. Net premiums written by the Company’s non-California operations were $171.1$153.7 million in the thirdfirst quarter of 2007,2008, a 15.7%16.9% decrease over the corresponding period in 2006.2007. The decrease in net premiums written is primarily due to a decrease in the number of policies written byreflecting the Company’s non-California operations, mostly in New Jersey and Florida which are experiencing a significant amount of competition.

Net premiums written is a non-GAAP financial measure which represents the premiums charged on policies issued during a fiscal period less any applicable reinsurance. Net premiums written is a statutory measure designed

16

to determine production levels. Net premiums earned, the most directly comparable GAAP measure, represents the portion of net premiums written that is recognized as income in the financial statements for the period presented. The following is a reconciliation of total Company net premiums written to net premiums earned for the quarters ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively:

The loss ratio (GAAP basis) in the third quarter (loss and loss adjustment expenses related to premiums earned) was 66.5% in 2007 and 65.2% in 2006. There was negative development of approximately $2 million and approximately $3 million on prior accident years’ loss reserves for the quarters ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Excluding the effect of prior accident years’ loss development, the loss ratio in the third quarter was 66.2% in 2007 and 64.8% in 2006. The increase in the loss ratio excluding the effect of prior accident years’ loss development is primarily due to higher average loss severities in the 2007 accident year resulting from inflation.

The expense ratio (GAAP basis) in the third quarter of 2007 (policy acquisition costs and other expenses related to premiums earned) of 27.7% is not significantly different from 27.8% in the corresponding period of 2006. The majority of expenses vary directly with premiums.

The combined ratio of losses and expenses (GAAP basis) is the key measure of underwriting performance traditionally used in the property and casualty insurance industry. A combined ratio under 100% generally reflects profitable underwriting results; a combined ratio over 100% generally reflects unprofitable underwriting results. The combined ratio of losses and expenses (GAAP basis) was 94.2% in the third quarter of 2007 compared with 93.0% in the corresponding period of 2006, which indicates that the Company’s underwriting performance contributed $43.2 million to the Company’s income before income taxes of $83.7 million during the 2007 period versus contributing $52.8 million to the Company’s income before income taxes of $91.4 million in the 2006 period.

Investment income in the third quarter of 2007 was $39.2 million, compared with $36.9 million in the third quarter of 2006. The after-tax yield on average investments (fixed maturities and equities valued at cost) was 3.9% in the third quarter of 2007 compared to 3.7% in the corresponding period of 2006 on average invested assets of $3,498 million and $3,358 million, respectively. The increase in after-tax yield is largely due to overall higher yields earned on new purchases in the investment portfolio, which reflects higherrecent soft market interest rates in 2006 and 2007 when compared to earlier periods.

The income tax provision in the third quarter of 2007 of $20.4 million represented an effective tax rate of 24% compared with an effective rate of 25% in the corresponding period of 2006. The lower rate in 2007 compared to 2006 is primarily attributable to an increased proportion of tax exempt investment income including tax sheltered dividend income, in contrast to taxable investment income and underwriting income.

Net income for the third quarter 2007 of $63.3 million, or $1.15 per share (diluted), compares with $68.2 million, or $1.25 per share (diluted), in the corresponding period of 2006. Basic net income per share was $1.16 in the third quarter of 2007 and $1.25 in the third quarter of 2006.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2007 compared to Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006

Premiums earned in the nine months ended September 30, 2007 increased approximately 0.7% from the corresponding period in 2006. Net premiums written in the nine months ended September 30, 2007 decreased approximately 1.0% from the corresponding period in 2006. Net premiums written on the California automobile lines of business were $1,564.7 million in the first nine months of 2007, an increase of 3.5% over the same period in 2006. Net premiums written by the Company’s non-California operations were $525.5 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2007, a decrease of approximately 14.2% over the same period in 2006. The decrease in net

17

premiums written is primarily due to a decrease in the number of policies written by the Company’s non-California operations, mostly in New Jersey and Florida, which are experiencing a significant amount of competition. The decrease is partially offset by a slight increase in the number of policies written by the Company’s California operations and an increase in the average premium collected per policy. In addition, the Company accrued a liability for coupons at June 30, 2007 that are expected to be issued and redeemed as part of the Donabedian litigation (see “Sam Donabedian, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance Company, et al.” in Item 1. Legal Proceedings in Part II-Other Information). These coupons will be redeemable for $25 or $45 towards new or renewal premiums. The impact of the accrual is a $5 million reduction in premiums written and earned for the nine months ended September 30, 2007.conditions.

Net premiums written is a non-GAAP financial measure which represents the premiums charged on policies issued during a fiscal period less any applicable reinsurance. Net premiums written is a statutory measure designed to determine production levels. Net premiums earned, the most directly comparable GAAP measure, represents the portion of net premiums written that is recognized as income in the financial statements for the period presented and earned on a pro-rata basis over the term of the policies.presented. The following is a reconciliation of total Company net premiums written to net premiums earned for the nine monthsquarters ended September 30, 2007March 31, 2008 and 2006, respectively:2007:

The loss ratio (GAAP basis) in the first nine monthsquarter (loss and loss adjustment expenses related to premiums earned) was 66.9%67.1% in 20072008 and 66.9%67.5% in 2006.2007. There was positive development of approximately $5 million and negative development of approximately $15 million and approximately $18$13 million on prior accident years’ loss reserves for the nine monthsquarters ended September 30,March 31, 2008 and 2007, and 2006, respectively. Excluding the effect of prior accident years’ loss development, the loss ratio in the first nine monthsquarter was 66.3%67.8% in 20072008 and 66.1%65.7% in 2006.2007. The slight increase in the loss ratio excluding the effect of prior accident years’ loss development is primarily due to higher average loss severitiesfrequency and severity in the 2007 accident year resulting from inflation,California automobile lines of business, partially offset by an increase in thehigher average premium collectedpremiums earned per policy.

The expense ratio (GAAP basis) in the first nine months of 2007quarter (policy acquisition costs and other operating expenses related to premiums earned) was 27.3% compared to 27.6%28.3% in the corresponding period of 2006. Other operating expenses for the first nine months of 2006 included a goodwill impairment charge of $3 million. Excluding this charge,2008 and 27.0% in 2007. The increase in the expense ratio is largely reflective of costs such as payroll and benefits that have not declined in proportion to the declines in premium volumes thus causing an increase in the first nine monthsexpense ratio. This is particularly true in states outside of 2006 was 27.5%,California which is not significantly different from that in the same period of 2007. The majority of expenses vary directly with premiums.have seen net earned premiums decline by approximately 14%.

The combined ratio of losses and expenses (GAAP basis) is the key measure of underwriting performance traditionally used in the property and casualty insurance industry. A combined ratio under 100% generally reflects

18

profitable underwriting results; a combined ratio over 100% generally reflects unprofitable underwriting results. The combined ratio of losses and expenses (GAAP basis) was 94.2%95.4% in the first nine monthsquarter of 20072008 compared with 94.5% in the corresponding period of 2006,2007, which indicates that the Company’s underwriting performance contributed $130.0$33.0 million and $41.4 million to the Company’s incomeresults of operations before income taxes of $260.3 million duringfor the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, period versus contributing $123.5 million to the Company’s income before income taxes of $246.2 million in the 2006 period.respectively.

Investment income forin the first nine monthsquarter of 20072008 was $122.2$39.3 million, compared with $112.5$42.1 million in the first nine monthsquarter of 2006.2007. The after-tax yield on average investments (fixed maturities and equities valued at cost) was 4.0%3.9% in the first nine monthsquarter of 20072008 compared to 3.8%4.2% in the corresponding period of 20062007 on average invested assets of $3,452 million$3.5 billion and $3,291 million,$3.4 billion, respectively. The increasedecrease in after-tax yield is largely due to the absence of a large one-time special dividend received on an equity investment in the first quarter 2007 and lower overall higher yields earned on new purchases in the investment portfolio, which is reflective of higher market interest rates in 2006 and 2007 when compared to earlier periods.that were made primarily throughout 2007.

18

The incomeIncome tax provisionbenefit in the first nine monthsquarter of 2006 of $81.52008 was $15.1 million, was impacted significantly by a $15 millioncompared with income tax charge relating to the Noticesexpense of Proposed Assessments for the tax years 1993 through 1996 (the “NPAs”) that were upheld by the California State Board of Equalization. Excluding the effect of this income tax charge results in an effective tax rate of 27% in 2006 compared with an effective rate of 26%$21.0 million in the corresponding periodfirst quarter of 2007. The lower ratechange is largely due to a tax benefit of approximately $33 million that was recognized in 2007 is primarily attributablethe quarter ended March 31, 2008 related to an increased proportionchanges in the fair value of tax exempt investment income including tax sheltered dividend income,fixed maturity and equity securities measured at fair value in contrast to taxable investment income and underwriting income.accordance with SFAS No. 159.

Net incomeloss for the first nine monthsquarter 2008 of 2007 of $193.2$4.0 million, or $3.52$0.07 per share (diluted), compares with $164.7net income of $60.5 million, or $3.01$1.10 per share (diluted), in the corresponding period of 2006.2007. Basic net incomeearnings per share was $3.53$(0.07) in the first nine monthsquarter of 20072008 and $3.01$1.11 in the first nine monthsquarter of 2006.2007. Included in net (loss)/income are net realized investment losses, net of tax, of $59.9 million in the first quarter of 2008 compared with net realized investment losses, net of tax, of $0.7 million for the same period in 2007. Net realized investment losses, net of tax, in the first quarter 2008 of $59.9 million include losses, net of tax, of $60.6 million due to changes in the fair value of fixed maturity and equity securities measured at fair value pursuant to SFAS No. 159. The primary causes of these losses in fair value were a large decline in the overall stock markets which saw the S&P 500 index decline by approximately 10% during the first quarter of 2008 and a decline in municipal bond prices resulting from liquidity problems in the overall municipal bond markets and credit downgrades or negative outlooks for several municipal bond insurers.

Operating income for the first quarter of 2008 was $55.9 million, down 8.5% from the prior year quarter due to a decrease in premiums earned reflecting the recent soft market conditions leading to a higher combined ratio and a decrease in after-tax investment income resulting from lower investment yields.

Operating income is a non-GAAP measure which represents net income excluding realized investment gains and losses, net of tax, and adjustments for other significant non-recurring, infrequent or unusual items. Net income is the GAAP measure that is most directly comparable to operating income. The following is a reconciliation of operating income to the most directly comparable GAAP measure.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Net cash provided by operating activities in the first ninethree months of 20072008 was $206.4$32.2 million, a decrease of $86.7$20.5 million over the same period in 2006.2007. This decrease was primarily due to higher losses and loss adjustment expenses paid in relation to premiums collected during the first ninethree months of 2007 when2008 compared with the same period in 2006.2007. The Company has utilized the cash provided from operating activities primarily for its investment in fixed

19

maturity and equity securities, the purchase and development of information technology and the payment of dividends to its shareholders. Funds derived from the sale, redemption or maturity of fixed maturity investments of $1,425.2$298.8 million were reinvested, by the Company generallymostly in highly-rated fixed maturity securities.

The Company’s cash and short-term investment portfolio totaled $379.9$303.0 million at September 30, 2007.March 31, 2008. Together with cash flows from operations, the Company believes that such liquid assets are adequate to satisfy its liquidity requirements without the forced sale of investments. However, the Company operates in a rapidly evolving and often unpredictable business environment that may change the timing or amount of expected future cash receipts and expenditures. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Company’s sources of funds will be sufficient to meet its liquidity needs or that the Company will not be required to raise additional funds to meet those needs, including future business expansion, through the sale of equity or debt securities or from credit facilities with lending institutions.

The following table sets forth the composition of the total investment portfolio of the Company as of September 30, 2007:March 31, 2008:

The market value of total investments held at market exceeded amortized cost at September 30, 2007 by $125.6 million ($81.6 million, net of applicable tax effects) compared to $107.4 million ($69.8 million, net of applicable tax effects) at December 31, 2006. During the first ninethree months of 2007,2008, the Company recognized approximately $11.0$92.1 million in net realized gainsinvestment losses which included a loss of approximately $8.6$95.4 million ($5.6 million after taxes) in write-downs of investments as other-than-temporary declines, approximately $1.0 million gain ($0.7 million

19

after taxes) related to the change in the fair value of hybrid financial instruments, and approximately $0.4 million gain ($0.362.0 million after taxes) related to the change in the fair value of trading securities.total investments.

At September 30, 2007,March 31, 2008, the average rating of the $2,853.2$2,774.5 million bond portfolio at market (amortized cost $2,832.8 million)fair value was AA, unchanged from December 31, 2006.2007. Bond holdings are broadly diversified geographically, within the tax-exempt sector. Holdings in the taxable sector consist principally of investment grade issues. At September 30, 2007,March 31, 2008, bond holdings rated below investment grade totaled $46.3$42.6 million at market (amortized cost $43.0 million)fair value representing approximately 1.3%1.2% of total investments. This compares to approximately $48.6$47.7 million at market (amortized cost $43.8 million)fair value representing approximately 1.4%1.3% of total investments at December 31, 2006.2007.

The entireDuring the second half of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, the investment market has experienced substantial volatility as a result of uncertainty in the credit markets. As a result, some asset classes have had liquidity strain and/or valuation issues, including mortgage-backed securities (“CMO”), privately insured municipal bonds, and adjustable rate short-term securities.

The entire CMO portfolio consistsconsisted of loans to prime borrowers except for approximately $18 million and $20 million, (amortized cost and market value)at fair value, of Alt-A CMO’s.CMO’s at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively. Alt-A mortgages are generally home loans made to individuals that have credit scores as high as prime borrowers, but provide less documentation of their finances on their credit applications. All of the Company’s Alt-A CMO’s are currently rated AAA and the overall rating of the entire CMO portfolio is AAA. The valuation of these securities is based on level 2 inputs that can be observed in the market.

20

The Company had approximately $2.4 billion, at fair value, in municipal bonds at March 31, 2008. Approximately half of the municipal bonds do not carry insurance from bond insurers and have an average rating of A. The other half of the municipal bond positions are insured by bond insurers. The following bond insurers each insured more than one percent of the Company’s municipal bond portfolio at March 31, 2008: MBIA-16.2%, FSA-10.3%, FGIC-9.3%, AMBAC-8.8%, and XLCA-2.0%.

For insured bonds that have underlying ratings, the average underlying rating was A+. There was also approximately $170 million of insured bonds that carried no official underlying rating. The Company considers bonds that carry no underlying rating as being investment grade since it is an underwriting policy of the “AAA” mono-line insurers that the issuer qualifies as an investment grade credit in order to get the bond insurer’s rating. The Company considers the strength of the underlying credit as a buffer against potential market value declines which may result from future rating downgrades of the bond insurers. In addition, the Company has a long-term time horizon for its municipal bond holdings, which allows it to recover the full principal amounts upon maturity, preventing forced sales of bonds prior to maturity that have declined in market value due to the bond insurers’ rating downgrades.

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 September 30, 2007,March 31, 2008, short-term cash investments consisted of highly rated short duration securities redeemable on a daily or weekly basis. The Company does not have any material direct equity investment in subprime lenders.

The Company monitors its investments closely. If an unrealized loss is determined to be other-than-temporary, it is written off as a realized loss through the consolidated statements of income in the period of such determination. The Company’s assessment of other-than-temporary impairments is based on security-specific analysis as of the balance sheet date and considers various factors including the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been lower than the cost, the financial condition and the near-term prospects of the issuer, whether the debtor is current on its contractually obligated interest and principal payments, and the Company’s ability and intent to hold the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow the security to recover its value.

The following table illustrates the gross unrealized losses on securities available for sale and the fair value of those securities, aggregated by investment category as of September 30, 2007. The table also illustrates the length of time that they have been in a continuous unrealized loss position.

The $36.2 million gross unrealized losses on securities available for sale represents 1.04% of total investments at amortized cost. These unrealized losses consist mostly of individual securities with unrealized losses of less than 20% of each security’s amortized cost. Of these, the most significant unrealized loss relates to one corporate bond with an unrealized loss of approximately $1.3 million and with a market value decline of 10% of amortized cost. Approximately $1.8 million of the total gross unrealized losses relate to 20 individual equity securities and two fixed maturity securities with unrealized losses that exceed 20% of each security’s amortized cost. Of these, the most significant unrealized losses relate to four equity securities totaling $1.2 million, with an individual unrealized loss between $0.1 million and $0.5 million and with a market value decline between 29% and 40% of amortized cost.

20

Based upon the Company’s analysis of the securities, which includes the status of debt servicing for fixed maturities and third party analyst estimates for the equity securities, and the Company’s intent and ability to hold the securities until they mature or recover their costs, the Company has concluded that the gross unrealized losses of $36.2 million on securities available for sale were temporary in nature at September 30, 2007. However, facts and circumstances in future periods may change, which could result in a decline in market value considered to be other-than-temporary.

The following table illustrates the gross unrealized losses on securities available for sale and the fair value of those securities, aggregated by investment category as of December 31, 2006. The table also illustrates the length of time that they had been in a continuous unrealized loss position.

Unrealized losses that have been in a continuous unrealized loss position over 12 months are mostly accounted for by unrealized losses of fixed maturity securities, and amounted to 0.29% of the total investment market value at September 30, 2007 compared to 0.34% at December 31, 2006. The increase from December 31, 2006 to September 30, 2007 in the total unrealized losses is primarily in the “less than 12 months” category and relates primarily to the general credit market disruption experienced during the quarter ended September 30, 2007.

Industry and regulatory guidelines suggest that the ratio of a property and casualty insurer’s annual net premiums written to statutory policyholders’ surplus should not exceed 3 to 1. Based on the combined surplus of all of the licensed insurance subsidiaries of $1.7 billion at September 30, 2007March 31, 2008 and net written premiums for the twelve months ended on that date of $3.0$2.9 billion, the ratio of writings to surplus was approximately 1.81.7 to 1.

The Company’s book value per share at September 30, 2007March 31, 2008 was $33.73$33.37 per share.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

There have been no material changes in the Company’s investment strategies, types of financial instruments held or the risks associated with such instruments which would materially alter the market risk disclosures made in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.2007.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Company’s reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.

21

As required by Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 13a-15(b), the Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the quarter covered by this report. Based on the foregoing, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.

21

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There has been no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The Company’s process for evaluating controls and procedures is continuous and encompasses constant improvement of the design and effectiveness of established controls and procedures and the remediation of any deficiencies which may be identified during this process.

PART II—II - OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. 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 which the Company is able to estimate its potential exposure and the likelihood that the court will rule against the Company is probable. The Company vigorously defends these actions, 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 quarterly results of operations; however, it is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial position. Also, see the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.2007.

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). FollowingThe parties reached a rulingsettlement in late 2007, which was approved by the Court of Appeal in another case which found that there is no private right of actionon December 14, 2007. The Court also considered FTCR’s request for attorney’s fees and took the matter under submission. Prior to allege violations of Section 1861.02, the Company brought a motion for judgmentCourt’s ruling 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 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 withmatter, the Plaintiff the Company did not seek further appellate review of the Court’s ruling.

22

During the fall of 2005, counsel for the Plaintiffagreed to reduce its $1,575,000 in agreed upon fees by $250,000, payable to FTCR, and the Company met on several occasions inagreed to give FTCR an effort to resolve the case. FTCR was not invited to participate in these discussions. When Plaintiff andadditional $250,000 for a total payment of attorneys’ fees by the Company were not able to reach a resolution,Plaintiffs’ counsel of $1,325,000 and to counsel for FTCR of $500,000 with any additional fees claimed by FTCR to come from any monies that remain available in the Court ordered the parties to a settlement conference before another judge. On August 1, 2006, following three settlement conferences,guaranteed $5 million that the Company has committed in the settlement after redemption of coupons issued to class members. The attorneys’ fees have now been paid to class counsel and FTCR. Mercury has mailed the Plaintiff reached a preliminary settlement which was subjectcoupons to completionmembers of the class approval process and was also subjectwho now have two years in which to objections and review byredeem 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 the parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss. The Court also granted the Company’s request to strike the punitive damage claim. On February 27, 2007, the Court determined, at the Company’s request, that the Court would initially evaluate the Company’s defenses that its conduct was protected by the administrative estoppel and filed rate plan doctrines and thus the Company has no liability in the case and established a schedule for discovery and briefing on these issues. Thereafter, the Company and Plaintiff continued settlement discussions and ultimately were able to reach an agreement which has preliminarily been approved by the Court. The settlement provides for the Company to issue coupons to class members (who do not opt out of the class) that can be used towards new or renewal business in a minimum aggregate amount of $5 million, and if coupons up to that amount are not redeemed, the difference will go to charities to be designated by the Court. The Company submitted the filing to the DOI for approval and the terms of the settlement were approved by the DOI in September 2007. Accordingly, the Company has mailed notice of the settlement to all class members who will then have a period of time to object or opt out of the settlement if they choose not to participate. A final settlement hearing has been set for December 14, 2007. At that time, in addition to considering any objections to the proposed settlement, the Court also will consider an award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs (for which the settlement provides a cap on fees of $1.575 million with the exact amount to be determined by the Court). FTCR also has indicated its intent to seek attorneys’ fees which the Company intends to oppose.

Although the Company continues to believe that it has strong defenses to the action, given the DOI’s actions in connection with the Company’s application of the persistency discount, the proposed settlement is believed to be a favorable outcome of the case considering the cost, inconvenience and uncertainty of litigation. The Company accrued $5 million as a reduction in premiums in the second quarter of 2007 as a result of the proposed settlement.coupon.

InMarissa 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 class notice has been sent to approximately 14,000 class members. The Company has appealed the class certification ruling, and the Court of Appeal has stayed the case pending their review. The Plaintiff allegesalleging that these automated databasesthey 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 issuePlaintiff sought class action certification of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman sustained any damages as a resultall of the Company’s handling of herinsureds from 1998 to the present who presented a medical payments claim.claim, had the claim reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach the policy limits for medical payments. The trial against Mercury has been scheduledCourt certified the class on January 11, 2007. The Company appealed the class certification ruling, and the Court of Appeal stayed the case pending their review. The Company and the Plaintiff have subsequently agreed to settle the claims for March 28,an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s operations and financial position. The settlement was approved by the Court on April 24, 2008, subject to class members’ ability to object. Final approval of the settlement is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2008. The Companyultimate outcome of this matter is not ableexpected to evaluatebe material to 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.Company’s financial position.

22

On March 28, 2006, the California State Board of Equalization (“SBE”) upheld Notices of Proposed Assessments issued against the Company for tax years 1993 through 1996 in which the California Franchise Tax Board disallowed a portion of the Company’s expenses related to management services provided to its insurance

23

company subsidiaries. As a result of this ruling, the Company recorded an income tax charge (including penalties and interest) of approximately $15 million, after federal tax benefit, in the first quarter of 2006. On April 24, 2007, the Company filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco challenging the SBE decision and seeking recovery of the taxes, penalties and interest paid by the Company as a result of the SBE decision. The trial has been scheduled for March 17, 2008.commenced on April 29, 2008, and is currently in process. The Company believes that the deduction of the expenses related to management services provided to its insurance company subsidiaries is appropriate and intends to vigorously prosecute the case.

InRobert 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 that, among other things, required the Company to accept applications for insurance from any California licensed broker with limited exceptions, restricted the use of broker manuals and communications with brokers by the Company’s field personnel, and required the Company to compensate brokers at the same rate based on volume of sales. The Company has implemented changes to its operations and believes that it is in compliance with the modified injunction. At the time the injunction was issued, the Court stated that it would consider vacating the modified injunction following a one year period of review of the changes in the Company’s operations. On March 2, 2007, the Company filed a motion seeking to vacate the modified injunction. At the hearing, the Court ordered that counsel be permitted to conduct a further limited investigation and to file a report for further consideration by the Court. The Company is unable to determine whether the modified injunction will be vacated or estimate the impact of the Court’s decision regarding the modified injunction on future trends in earnings or loss ratios.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

There have been no material changes to the risk factors as previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.2007.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

None

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities

None

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

None

Item 5. Other Information

Amendment of Bylaws

On November 2, 2007, the Board of Directors of the Company approved Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company to permit the Company to issue uncertificated shares as required by the New York Stock Exchange to enable the Company to participate in the Direct Registration System for publicly traded securities operated by The Depository Trust Company. The full text of the Amended and Restated Bylaws is filed as Exhibit 3.1.

Real Estate Transaction

In October 2007, the Company completed the acquisition of a 4.25 acre parcel of land in Brea, California. The purchase price of $7.5 million includes issuing a $4.5 million promissory note that is due in April 2009. In addition, in October 2007, the Company executed a definitive Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire an 88,300 square foot office building in Folsom, California for approximately $18.4 million in cash. The transaction is expected to be closed near the end of 2007. The land in Brea is adjacent to the property currently owned by the Company and will be used for future expansion. The building in Folsom will be used to house the Company’s northern California employees when the existing lease expires on the building that they currently occupy.None

24

California Fire Storm

In October 2007, the Southern California region was devastated by sweeping fire storms. As of November 1, 2007, approximately 2,200 homes have been reported as destroyed. The Company estimates its California homeowners market share to be approximately 3%. As of November 1, 2007, the Company has received 13 total property loss claims and 153 partial property loss claims related to the fires and over 700 claims related to wind damage. The Company anticipates that the number of reported claims will increase but is uncertain as to the total number of claims that will ultimately be reported. These claims are expected to negatively impact the Company’s operating results for the fourth quarter of 2007.

Item 6. Exhibits

23

2524

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

2625