> states like Florida are becoming uninsurable due to climate risks raising the price above what residents can afford, which raises insurance costs for the rest

> states like Florida are becoming uninsurable due to climate risks raising the price above what residents can afford, which raises insurance costs for the rest of us in other states. What ought to happen (IMO) is that the first clause and the second clause should be divorced from each other. If insurance premiums are unaffordably high in Florida, people in Florida have the choice to pay it anyway, self-insure [if they're able], move, or start another insurance company to try to drive down prices. Smart insurance companies, if they can't make a profit in Florida, should pull out of Florida rather than subsidizing losses in Florida with increased profits (read: higher premiums) in other states. Smart consumers in other states will place their policies with insurance companies who are not subsidizing actuarially unsound risks in other states. If your auto insurance company said "even though actuarial data supports its use, we're going to stop using DUI convictions and other serious traffic convictions to influence rates. We expect this will garner us significant new business from a population currently being charged more money for these surchargable events at only a modest increase in cost for other customers" and you were a driver with no such events on your record, would you at least shop for another insurance company? I would. (My insurance company has already stopped writing new policies in Florida and, from what I can tell from a quick Google, is only renewing existing policies for owner-occupants of those properties.)