> No, I understood your intent Seems to me you did not. > I don't really agree that it makes sense to individualize risk like this so that one person gets com

> No, I understood your intent Seems to me you did not. > I don't really agree that it makes sense to individualize risk like this so that one person gets completely ruined by freak occurrences. An earthquake in California is not a freak occurrence. A fire in a fire prone area is not a freak occurrence. A hurricane in Florida is not a freak occurrence. A sink hole in Florida is not a freak occurrence. People not living in those areas should not be forced to subsidize those that do. It's not like people are being dropped in large numbers yet or that State Farm was the only insurer. > Maybe if we're talking about particularly high-risk zones, but the entire state of California, inhabited by 44mn people and spanning more than half the West Coast, should be left out to dry? Maybe California makes it too hard to refuse service to only certain people and this is the only way to handle it? Do you honestly believe they would leave money on the table if they didn't have to? There are other insurers there.