Large insurance companies have ten figure net incomes on top of paying out lavish executive salaries, paying out dividends, etc. But the game isn't biased. Right.

Until there is a tornado or a flood then they have to pay 11 figures to cover damages.

a) that's what reinsurance is for.

b) Can you give some specific examples? I'm using State Farm as a place-holder for "large insurance company". They had one really bad year recently where they "only" made 9 figures in net income.

Insurance companies are extremely profitable. Their losses in bad years are more than offset by gains in good years.

You're from the US? US is all about profits so that makes sense. Property insurance don't even have to compensate against flood and usual risks which is stupid IMO.

In other locations, insurances are not all about profit and reinsurance. Either they're public operated by the government, or they're private and have caps on how much they can charge compared to how much they return and they don't get to choose what they can cover or not.

I am pretty sure my last insurance was directly financing the government. I suppose it makes sense to store billions of euros long term (until a disaster) into dedicated government bonds, which benefits both the government and the company. That is to say, the money fits a larger purpose in the meantime, it's not all evil.

Yes, specific to the US. That's fair :)