I keep telling conservatives this. It makes sense to have some form of suspicion around a message when some corporation has a profit motive behind it. For instance, climate change and companies selling solar panels (although I wish they wouldn't put SO much effort into that faint connection).

However, that also applies for the inverse - that when insurance drops coverage for Florida homes, it's because climate change is real and they know it will hurt their bottom line.

Funny enough, that's exactly what the article says.

The extra danger to pedestrians might also affect the liability calculations.

The weird thing about this claim is that these aren't deal breakers. It's possible to get insurance for exotics like McLaren or Bugatti (although no idea if GEICO does those); it just costs a lot.

I'd really like to hear more about those underwriting standards.