Your analogy is sound but your conclusion is not. There are many home owners that live by the shore that can’t purchase flood insurance from any provider. Similarly with life insurance, if I die engaging in certain risky behavior, it voids my insurance policy.
The purpose of insurance is to socialize losses. But if a few participants in the insurance pool engage in outsized risky behavior, that’s not fair to the rest of the pool that chose significantly less risky decisions.
The conclusion holds since there are a great many homes in CA alone that cannot be insured against fire. They were built before that was an option, or were otherwise grandfathered in after fire codes were established. Same with floods and other threats
The purpose of insurance is to socialize losses. But if a few participants in the insurance pool engage in outsized risky behavior, that’s not fair to the rest of the pool that chose significantly less risky decisions.