Assuming that insurance is already priced as accurately as it can be according to the available data, then discovering that wealthy people tend to evacuate disaster areas while the poorer residents remain would suggest that you charge greater premiums for the impoverished and give a price break to the rich. As it stands, the poor are effectively getting subsidized by otherwise similar individuals with more wealth.

Insofar as the utility associated with money is roughly logarithmic, then the net utility from a pricing change will likely decrease. For example, a wealthy person will be pleased with a $500 reduction in premiums (that's a new pair of shoes or some decent concert tickets); a $500 increase might induce a poor person to forgo renewing their life insurance (with disastrous effects for their dependents should they die) or if they pay it, then other worthy expenses might get cut to make up the difference (home repairs, sending your kids to summer camp, retirement savings).

Even assuming that everyone values money equivalently despite their net worth, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Here's one wealthy elite technocrat, already invading people's privacy on an Orwellian scale, and he's using that access to explicitly prey on poor people to make money for other people who are already rich.