Option A - CORRECT.
Most damage to the city was blamed on fire because the universal practice of insuring San Francisco against fire is cost effective rather than insuring against earthquake that occurred naturally due to a change in nature. Also 90% of the occurrence was blamed on fire because the footage of the earthquake was unrecoverable / unavailable by the insurance company. However for quick recovery of California economy there has to be a levy or high tax on the citizens who may not be willing to pay not until they get the footage to cause of the occurrence

Option B - INCORRECT.
The city will eventually be rebuilt but not by the government alone, also taxes will be impose on citizens too for the restructuring since there is no evidence to proof of damage by the earthquake.

Option C - INCORRECT.
Insurance companies were forced to offer earthquake coverage which was unavailable that was why 90% of the occurrence was blamed on fire damage so that citizens can pay for fire insurance which will enhance the development of the city and boost the California economy.

Option D - INCORRECT.
This option does not have a proof to the clam that residents subsequently moved to other cities where earthquake coverage was available.

Option E - INCORRECT.
The statement in this option has not been indicated as a reason why earthquake damage was not guaranteed and also why 90% of the occurrence was blamed on fire. If buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired then its means the government is saving cost for the development of the part of the city damaged by fire.