The point of raising rates is to compensate for higher risk. However that is politically very unpopular, so voters put pressure on politicians to prevent insure

The point of raising rates is to compensate for higher risk. However that is politically very unpopular, so voters put pressure on politicians to prevent insurers from adequately pricing risk through premiums. Also, I don't think the government is predominantly to blame. I'd wager plenty of people in local, state, federal governments know that these locations need to be expensive to insure or are basically uninsurable. However, voters refuse to accept the reality of increasing risks due climate change, urban sprawl, and other factors. Politicians lack the incentive (or spine) to be honest about these risks. And anyone else in government, especially scientists, that do state the risks plainly are either ignored, censored, or fired. And its only going to get worse. As more companies pull out, governments will step in (pressured by voters) to be the insurers of last resort. This is already true in Florida (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Property_Insurance_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Property_Insurance_Co...) and (I believe) California. At some point, natural disasters will probably cause these government insurers to go (basically) bankrupt since they're insuring rich people's million dollar houses on Florida's coast and in California forests. Edit: I'd also wager companies are more than happy to price-gouge in situations like this too. I expect this is both premiums being insufficiently high and companies seeing profit opportunities.