The New York Times has an article about the reaction (and non-reaction) of insurers to higher risk of property damage as a result of global warming.
My guess is that the government will find itself more and more in the property insurance business. Just as it entered the flood insurance market through the National Flood Insurance Program, the government will have to make a choice about whether to abandon owners of property now at high risk for hurricanes and other disasters or to subsidize them.
My vote would be a gradually phased-out subsidy, perhaps with an income-based component. Just as I don't think that taxpayers should have to pay to protect the houses of people who choose to build on unstable lands prone to falling into oceans or canyons, I don't think that over the long-term taxpayers should have to pay to protect property that is highly likely to be destroyed by relatively predictable weather disasters. But I also don't want to see those property owners suffer a unilateral loss as a result of global warming, an event we have all caused and should all bear responsibility for. And I want to see poorer people with more protections for their limited assets.