The frame here is misguided. It sees insurance companies as engaging in a war against consumer protections and, fair enough, they explicitly are. However the reason they are engaged in that campaign is any companies that don't feel like fighting have shut down or left the state [0]. Very similar principle to how a starving animal might get a bit aggressive. It isn't normal to have an actively adversarial relationship with your insurers - mine charge a fair market price and I'm happy, they're happy. Everyone a winner.

> California home insurance companies’ return on net worth ... was three percentage points higher than the national average ... [and] the last five years were even better.

This is a fairly classic statistics mistake. If you shrink the insurance market by making it risky and difficult for businesses then the accessible low-margin types shut down and the boutique, highly expensive ones are the last to cling on. High profits in simple businesses like insurance are a sign of unhealthy markets. If anyone could go in and charge what they liked, the rate of profit would be so low that without investing the float insurers would be making a loss.

[0] I admit to making an assumption here. I did at least check for some sort of data although I don't hold myself to any particular standard of interpreting it - https://www.atlas-mag.net/en/article/distribution-of-insuran...