The problem with your supposed argument is that just because companies don't want to insure against eventd of type Y because they think they're likely or costly

The problem with your supposed argument is that just because companies don't want to insure against eventd of type Y because they think they're likely or costly does not mean that they're caused by reason X. Your argument is, on logical merits, not good enough to create a causation between, what I presume is "human influenced global warming increase" and "natural disaster increase". Now I realize this being a politically charged topic that people look at in an absolutist way, a response that looks only at the logical proposition of your comment, might not be well received.