I'm of two minds about this. If an area is extremely disaster-prone, you shouldn't build there. But it sucks to already live there, and not get insured. I'd be fine if there were no new insurance contacts on new houses being built.

Another, local example: in Germany, a few years ago there was a catastrophic flood that killed several people and destroyed many houses located in a river valley, because the river had been artificially narrowed and straightened. With looming climate change there was already talks about flooding risk and insurance covering. After the disaster, a decent chunk of people planned to rebuild their houses in the exact same spots. Some were not even insured, and relied on government disaster relief money, afaik