While this is true. It does not mean that they are not "normal." They are just so rare as to allow a party to get out of a contract.

As a society, we cannot ignore the cost of the "Act of God" level disasters when summing up the cost of said disaster. If an insurance companies might be able to avoid paying out on a claim doesn't mean property (or lives) did not get lost.

Just wanted to give some color to BMJ's comment for most people who would not be familiar with the legal boilerplate, as his comment was interpreted as theological by some.

In my mind the issue is pretty simple: if you buy a house in a wild-fire prone area, you should expect a wildfire at some point. Whether or not you want to prepare by a) purchasing insurance or b) wild-fire proofing your house is your prerogative. If you're not willing to take/mitigate the risk, then live somewhere else.

True, but not really relevant. I mean, that article literally (!) calls out flood insurance as a situation where such "acts" are subject to the contract.