It's like safety - you get as much safety as you are prepared to pay for (Baltimore bridge again) - if you aren't prepared to wear the cost of protecting your assets then don't be surprised when something bad happens which, with hindsight, you realise you could have prevented.
Building codes are there to protect people but they are easily watered down by pressure from builders who want volume not quality. Why else do you still have so many wood frame houses in high fire risk or high tornado risk areas?
As for the underwriters, they know the probabilities and make more money out of charging people for unlikely outcomes - if you had a super safe building that would provide ultimate protection, how would they be able to justify hiking your premiums every year?