https://californiaglobe.com/fl/larg...aim-climate-change-is-behind-ending-coverage/ Too funny! This is relevant nationally because most blue state leaders and their appointees are not worth the gum on my shoe. Unimaginative, overwhelmed, and incompetent, but incumbent. Insurance companies are one more deep pocket for democrats. The subtext of this clash is "we will politically slaughter your favorite goose, unless you (blah, blah, = reinsure us.) IOW, we want the state to pick up the risk of fire, flood, (and possibly) additional earthquake damage beyond what the state will cover. IOW, taxpayers in cities and suburbs subsidize homes built on kindling in the scenic and beautiful, fire prone sierra mountains. Sooo... what you have here is career politicians - Kamela Harris style "Huh. That's my job, too?" nit wits trying to put it all back together and they don't know squat because our corrupt media has allowed them to fake it all these years.
Insurance companies are businesses. They are pulling out because it's hurting their bottom line. Climate change is just the smokescreen, kind of like inflation is being used as the excuse now to raise prices on things well past what the inflation actually causes. This isn't actually a climate change story despite it's appearances, it's a business story about companies using climate change as a distraction.
Climate change is just reality. If you want to deny it, I guess they can say, "random changes in climate" have made it so that natural disasters happen more often and we can't afford to insure people. I'm sure if "mismanagement" of forests was really the main issue, the insurance companies would be right up there in some politicians' arses trying to force the government to fix it so that they don't have to pay for burnt homes.
The problem here is that there has not been an increase in natural disasters. It is a talking point designed to frighten people into turning their money and freedom over to government.