The insurance companies are dropping anyone who might actually make a claim.
.....The insurance companies are dropping anyone who might actually make a claim......
No, that is not at issue.
The issue painfully learned down south is that insurance for homeowners in cosatal areas subject to hurricanes is simply no longer feasible.
To adequately cover the risks, premiums must be so high people will not pay them. Property values have inflated to the point that insured values aren't adequate for recovery.
Rather than put up with the hassle of lawsuits about coverage and coverage valuations it is best to abandon the business.
There is a big difference between insuring against a risk and socializing risk. The political controversies surrounding insurance arise largely from people who think insurers should be socializing risk -- i.e., subsidizing high risk behaviors and locations.
The logic of insurance is that people who share a risk band together to pool resources against a predictable loss. People who live in coastal areas ought to pay a premium against hurricanes, just as people who live in California ought to pay for earthquakes. All that seems to be happening now is that insurers are splitting those risks out of the national risk pool. Fine with me.
I don't follow insurance closely but I get the impression that one of the big unnecessary problems is that state legislatures and courts are shredding coverage limitations on an ad hoc, after the fact basis. That destroys the predictablity on which rate setting depends. If I were an insurer, I'd be tempted to withdraw from the affected markets as well. Mandated coverages are a different matter. They are usually bad policy but one can factor them into the rates notwithstanding.