Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    That probably sounds good in your head. But you are only thinking of fires. What if they just pick the highest risk factor for every house and refuse to cover that. Then what would be the point of the insurance. And if you consider all the houses that are a high risk for something… fire, hurricane, flooding, high winds, tornadoes, earthquakes… you aren’t left with many houses.

    • 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
        ·
        42 minutes 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.