Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	– CONTINGENCIES Litigation The Company and its subsidiaries continue to be named individually as parties to litigation related to the conduct of their insurance operations. These suits involve alleged breaches of contracts, torts, including bad faith and fraud claims based on alleged wrongful or fraudulent acts of agents of the Company's subsidiaries, and miscellaneous other causes of action. Most of these lawsuits include claims for punitive damages in addition to other specified relief. The Company's property & casualty subsidiaries are defending a number of matters filed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. These actions include individual lawsuits and purported statewide class action lawsuits, although to date no class has been certified in any action. These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood exclusion found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in certain actions other insurance companies' policies, is either ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained. The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or declaratory relief. All of these matters are in various stages of development and the Company's subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend them. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain. The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the State of Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit (“GCOP”) in the proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of the Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff alleges that said failure to include GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of its contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary damages in the form of contractual damages. A class certification hearing was held on March 1, 2010 with the trial court taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under advisement. On May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its ruling granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class. The Company filed its Appellant Brief on October 5, 2010. The Company denies Plaintiff's allegations and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. On November 18, 2011, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Alabama Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order granting class certification and remanded this case for proceedings consistent with the opinion. On May 2, 2012, this matter was settled and a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice was submitted to the trial court effectively ending this litigation. In April 2007, the Company sold substantially all of its 50% interest in Mobile Attic, Inc., to Bagley Family Revocable Trust (the "Purchaser"). The Company, Peter L. Cash and Russell L. Cash (collectively the "Sellers") sold to Purchaser 61% of the outstanding stock of Mobile Attic under the terms of a Stock Purchase Agreement dated April 5, 2007, executed by Sellers, Mobile Attic and Purchaser's assignor, James W. Bagley (the "Stock Purchase Agreement"). Under the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Purchaser paid the Company $2,700,000 for 45% of the total outstanding stock of Mobile Attic and paid the other Sellers $960,000 for an additional 16% of the total outstanding stock in Mobile Attic, thus obtaining a controlling interest of 61% of the outstanding stock. The Stock Purchase Agreement provided that Purchaser was to use his best efforts to cause the Company to be released from its guaranty of a bank loan to Mobile Attic having an outstanding principal balance of approximately $9,400,000. The bank loan was secured by portable storage containers of Mobile Attic. The Sellers made certain warranties to the Purchaser in the Stock Purchase Agreement regarding the financial condition of Mobile Attic and agreed to jointly and severally indemnify the Purchaser for any damages resulting from a breach of any of the warranties. On January 9, 2009, Mobile Attic Inc., MA Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Purchaser initiated an action against Peter Cash, Cash Brothers Leasing, Inc., Bridgeville Trailers, Inc., and Barfield, Murphy, Shank & Smith, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. In the complaint, Plaintiffs asserted, among other claims, a claim for damages resulting from a breach of certain of the warranties regarding the financial statements of Mobile Attic and other financial information provided by Mobile Attic. Purchaser then notified the Company of its claim for breach of warranty under the Stock Purchase Agreement and requested indemnity from the Company. The Purchaser has alleged that Mobile Attic's assets were misstated on its audited financial statements, which were physically attached as schedules to the Stock Purchase Agreement. The Sellers further warranted and represented that those financial statements were a correct statement of Mobile Attic's financial condition. The Stock Purchase Agreement also contained an indemnification clause under which the Company agreed to be jointly and severally liable with the other Sellers (whom the Company believes have limited resources) for all losses suffered by Purchaser as a result of any breach of the warranties and representations regarding Mobile Attic's financial condition. Purchaser claims that such losses should the value paid for the stock of Mobile Attic, Inc., the losses suffered on the assumption of Mobile Attic's bank loan, the operating losses funded by Purchaser after the stock purchase, and attorneys' fees incurred by Purchaser to enforce its claim for indemnity. On July 9, 2009, the Company filed a complaint in intervention requesting the Court to find that the Company is not liable for indemnity under the Stock Purchase Agreement, or in the alternative, to award damages to the Company for any loss suffered as a result of the fraudulent actions of Peter Cash and as a result of the negligence of Mobile Attic and its auditors in the preparation of Mobile Attic's financial statements. [Mobile Attic, Inc., MA Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Bagley Family Revocable Trust, plaintiffs, v. Peter L. Cash, Cash Brothers Leasing, Inc., Bridgeville Trailers, Inc., and Barfield, Murphy, Shank & Smith, P.C, defendants, v. The National Security Group, Inc., intervenor plaintiff, v. Peter L. Cash, Barfield, Murphy, Shank & Smith, P.C. and Bagley Family Revocable Trust, intervenor defendants, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division, Civil Action No. 09-cv-00024.] On August 13, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to intervene. At the request of the Court, each party filed an amended complaint on or before August 23, 2010. The Purchaser has asserted counterclaims against the Company seeking indemnification of Purchaser's losses and damages as a result of the breach of representations and warranties regarding Mobile Attic's financial condition, as set forth in the Stock Purchase Agreement. The Company has denied the allegations supporting Purchaser's claims. The financial records of Mobile Attic have been in the possession of Purchaser since Purchaser acquired the stock of Mobile Attic in early 2007 and are only available to the Company through discovery in the litigation. The Company actively conducted discovery in defense of Purchaser's claims and has requested Purchaser to provide the financial information supporting the allegations made in its complaint. Fact-based and expert discovery has concluded, but pre-trial investigation continues with the case set for trial in June 2012. The Company believes that the Purchaser's claim for damages is unreasonable and excessive even if the Purchaser is able to prove that certain assets were overstated in Mobile Attic's financial statements. The Company believes that if any damages are applicable due to any alleged breach of warranty in the Stock Purchase Agreement, those damages are limited to a diminished value of the stock price paid by the Purchaser. The Company has filed motions for summary judgment requesting a court ruling, among others, as to how damages should be measured as a matter of law. On April 24, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment and took the matter under advisement. Given the difficulty in obtaining access to the Mobile Attic financial records, continuing pre-trial investigation, and the outstanding legal issues, the Company is unable to predict the amount of the ultimate liability that the Company may have if the Purchaser is successful in this litigation. Management has recorded an estimate of aggregate litigation related defense costs associated with these actions as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and the amounts are included in other liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company establishes and maintains reserves on contingent liabilities. In many instances, however, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome with any degree of accuracy.

– CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

The Company and its subsidiaries continue to be named individually as parties to litigation related to the conduct of their insurance operations. These suits involve alleged breaches of contracts, torts, including bad faith and fraud claims based on alleged wrongful or fraudulent acts of agents of the Company's subsidiaries, and miscellaneous other causes of action. Most of these lawsuits include claims for punitive damages in addition to other specified relief.

The Company's property & casualty subsidiaries are defending a number of matters filed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. These actions include individual lawsuits and purported statewide class action lawsuits, although to date no class has been certified in any action. These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood exclusion found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in certain actions other insurance companies' policies, is either ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained.

The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or declaratory relief. All of these matters are in various stages of development and the Company's subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend them. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the State of Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit (“GCOP”) in the proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of the Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff alleges that said failure to include GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of its contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary damages in the form of contractual damages. A class certification hearing was held on March 1, 2010 with the trial court taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under advisement. On May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its ruling granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class. The Company filed its Appellant Brief on October 5, 2010. The Company denies Plaintiff's allegations and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. On November 18, 2011, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Alabama Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order granting class certification and remanded this case for proceedings consistent with the opinion. On May 2, 2012, this matter was settled and a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice was submitted to the trial court effectively ending this litigation.

In April 2007, the Company sold substantially all of its 50% interest in Mobile Attic, Inc., to Bagley Family Revocable Trust (the "Purchaser"). The Company, Peter L. Cash and Russell L. Cash (collectively the "Sellers") sold to Purchaser 61% of the outstanding stock of Mobile Attic under the terms of a Stock Purchase Agreement dated April 5, 2007, executed by Sellers, Mobile Attic and Purchaser's assignor, James W. Bagley (the "Stock Purchase Agreement").

Under the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Purchaser paid the Company $2,700,000 for 45% of the total outstanding stock of Mobile Attic and paid the other Sellers $960,000 for an additional 16% of the total outstanding stock in Mobile Attic, thus obtaining a controlling interest of 61% of the outstanding stock. The Stock Purchase Agreement provided that Purchaser was to use his best efforts to cause the Company to be released from its guaranty of a bank loan to Mobile Attic having an outstanding principal balance of approximately $9,400,000. The bank loan was secured by portable storage containers of Mobile Attic. The Sellers made certain warranties to the Purchaser in the Stock Purchase Agreement regarding the financial condition of Mobile Attic and agreed to jointly and severally indemnify the Purchaser for any damages resulting from a breach of any of the warranties.

On January 9, 2009, Mobile Attic Inc., MA Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Purchaser initiated an action against Peter Cash, Cash Brothers Leasing, Inc., Bridgeville Trailers, Inc., and Barfield, Murphy, Shank & Smith, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. In the complaint, Plaintiffs asserted, among other claims, a claim for damages resulting from a breach of certain of the warranties regarding the financial statements of Mobile Attic and other financial information provided by Mobile Attic. Purchaser then notified the Company of its claim for breach of warranty under the Stock Purchase Agreement and requested indemnity from the Company.

The Purchaser has alleged that Mobile Attic's assets were misstated on its audited financial statements, which were physically attached as schedules to the Stock Purchase Agreement. The Sellers further warranted and represented that those financial statements were a correct statement of Mobile Attic's financial condition. The Stock Purchase Agreement also contained an indemnification clause under which the Company agreed to be jointly and severally liable with the other Sellers (whom the Company believes have limited resources) for all losses suffered by Purchaser as a result of any breach of the warranties and representations regarding Mobile Attic's financial condition. Purchaser claims that such losses should the value paid for the stock of Mobile Attic, Inc., the losses suffered on the assumption of Mobile Attic's bank loan, the operating losses funded by Purchaser after the stock purchase, and attorneys' fees incurred by Purchaser to enforce its claim for indemnity.

On July 9, 2009, the Company filed a complaint in intervention requesting the Court to find that the Company is not liable for indemnity under the Stock Purchase Agreement, or in the alternative, to award damages to the Company for any loss suffered as a result of the fraudulent actions of Peter Cash and as a result of the negligence of Mobile Attic and its auditors in the preparation of Mobile Attic's financial statements. [Mobile Attic, Inc., MA Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Bagley Family Revocable Trust, plaintiffs, v. Peter L. Cash, Cash Brothers Leasing, Inc., Bridgeville Trailers, Inc., and Barfield, Murphy, Shank & Smith, P.C, defendants, v. The National Security Group, Inc., intervenor plaintiff, v. Peter L. Cash, Barfield, Murphy, Shank & Smith, P.C. and Bagley Family Revocable Trust, intervenor defendants, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division, Civil Action No. 09-cv-00024.]

On August 13, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to intervene. At the request of the Court, each party filed an amended complaint on or before August 23, 2010. The Purchaser has asserted counterclaims against the Company seeking indemnification of Purchaser's losses and damages as a result of the breach of representations and warranties regarding Mobile Attic's financial condition, as set forth in the Stock Purchase Agreement.

The Company has denied the allegations supporting Purchaser's claims. The financial records of Mobile Attic have been in the possession of Purchaser since Purchaser acquired the stock of Mobile Attic in early 2007 and are only available to the Company through discovery in the litigation. The Company actively conducted discovery in defense of Purchaser's claims and has requested Purchaser to provide the financial information supporting the allegations made in its complaint. Fact-based and expert discovery has concluded, but pre-trial investigation continues with the case set for trial in June 2012. The Company believes that the Purchaser's claim for damages is unreasonable and excessive even if the Purchaser is able to prove that certain assets were overstated in Mobile Attic's financial statements. The Company believes that if any damages are applicable due to any alleged breach of warranty in the Stock Purchase Agreement, those damages are limited to a diminished value of the stock price paid by the Purchaser. The Company has filed motions for summary judgment requesting a court ruling, among others, as to how damages should be measured as a matter of law. On April 24, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment and took the matter under advisement. Given the difficulty in obtaining access to the Mobile Attic financial records, continuing pre-trial investigation, and the outstanding legal issues, the Company is unable to predict the amount of the ultimate liability that the Company may have if the Purchaser is successful in this litigation. Management has recorded an estimate of aggregate litigation related defense costs associated with these actions as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and the amounts are included in other liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

The Company establishes and maintains reserves on contingent liabilities. In many instances, however, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome with any degree of accuracy.