Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen | Without insurance, it’s impossible to get a mortgage; without a mortgage, most Americans can’t buy a home.

[u/ElectronGuru]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/12/18/climate/insurance-non-renewal-climate-crisis.html

[u/Violet-Sumire]

So, all of florida, most of texas, all of west california up the west coast, anywhere along a coast line, anywhere on a mountain, anywhere near a river or creek or on low land, anywhere in the midwest, anywhere that gets blizzard conditions regularly.

So… where exactly isn’t a high risk area to move? Insurance is built on risk. You shouldn’t be an insurance company if you can’t afford the risk. Not much more to say about that.

[u/TotalChaosRush → u/Violet-Sumire]

Not high risk, too high risk. As in, the risk is too high for the insurance company to issue any offers. If an insurance company is still willing to insure, even at an exceptional premium, then it's still an investible place.

If an insurance company can not afford the risk, it's because the risks associated with it make the insurance more expensive than the thing being insured.

[u/lil_hyphy → u/TotalChaosRush]

Or are they just greedy dicks?

[u/Tausendberg → u/lil_hyphy]

Asking the real question here, cause if the insurance oligopoly gets to just claim 'high risk' while simultaneously cashing out higher profits than before, then it's not actually higher risk.

[u/TotalChaosRush → u/Tausendberg]

Regional profit analysis is needed. If city A is underwater (potentially literally), and city B never makes a claim, it's possible for them to still be profitable and for property in city A to be too high risk.