Also, as someone who lived in south Florida, flood insurance is a joke and unavailable near the coast anyway. Nobody expects it to pay out enough in a major catastrophe, including hurricanes and flooding.
Neither of those risks are comparable to earthquakes and hurricanes/flooding, which can be relied upon to thoroughly destroy huge swaths of cities, regularly.
In contrast, a slightly stronger quake in DC (5.8) caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to structures, including to the Washington Monument, because the local building codes did not contemplate earthquakes.
We already do; municipalities in blizzard-prone areas factor snow removal costs into their annual expenditures, which show up in residents' taxes.
Flood insurance is fundamentally the same, the payouts are just not well spread, requiring a large geographically diverse insurance company.
And we're not talking about a 10,000 euro loss here, when a home gets flooded, the loss is likely six figures or more since houses aren't cheap. Most people can't afford insurance for a likely loss of $100,000.
There are many large geographically diverse insurance companies, and there is a reason all of them stay away from flood insurance. There's no buyer for the amount of premium they would have to charge.
With tens of thousands of claims, home owners will get pennies on the dollar if they get anything at all.
plenty of places that don't see earthquakes, tornados, floods, hurricanes, or much of anything else.
blizzards might sound apocalyptic to a floridian, but generally just damage above-ground electrical, and maybe knock a few trees into a few roofs.