These 3 little pig arguments fall a bit flat to me.
You may have not seen what a forest fire, like those NorCal gets, does to a house. The insurance companies will have to pay just as much to replace a yard with some scorched brick in it where a family of four used to live, with their cars, possessions, appliances, etc. The house is ruined whether the walls survived the 1000 degree heat or not, because everything in and around it is lost.
Now there's certainly a class of old wooden houses on grasslands that are vulnerable to becoming infernos from stray sparks.
Assuming they weren't always that vulnerable (and that's what we're talking about here: new risk), I'm just not clear who would pay for it to be torn down and rebuild with (magical?) bricks. Did the homeowners have to do periodic risk assessments and decide when to do this? Who would pay for it? What's their motivation? They have insurance after all. They'll just rebuild.
If the insurance companies were caught off guard by this, how is a home owner to know and preemptively rebuild?
