Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    19 hours ago

    What a silly thing to say.

    Obviously, if one insurer refused to cover what ever thing, they would lose all their customers to other insurers who covered sensible risks.

    The point is, you can’t insure against risks that are too likely to occur.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Let me rephrase. If they refused to insure any house that was a high risk for one factor. That would be a very sizable chunk of the country. Even if they only refused to insure it for the thing it was high risk for, it would make unsurance on the house pointless. Flood zones and wildfire zones particularly are expending every year. Hurricane zones used to be ok to insure because hurricanes didn’t hit too hard too often. But they are stronger and more frequent, so much of Florida has a very short list of insurers which will trend to zero in the near future. While I agree everyone should move out of florida because of the shitty politics, that isn’t really practical.