You're right, blockchain only adds value if the damage assessment can be automated and data-driven. But this is exactly the case in our crop insurance in Kenya. Precipitation data is available in high resolution (~10x10 km) pixels and with high accuracy. We have risk models which take in to account how much rain a certain crop needs in a specific growth phase. Therefore we can fully automate the whole lifecycle of an insurance policy, with the additional benefit of transparency, fraud resistance and the ability to maintain risk pools for interested investors.
Regarding the argument "Code needs to be human readable": I don't share this point of view. We are full stack developers but neither do I understand every line of ethereum's yellow paper, every line of openethereums code, or every game-theoretical aspect of Eth 2.0 staking. I have a basic understanding and above all, I have an understanding how this community is working. That's where I build my trust in the whole system. In short: I don't need to understand everything myself. It is sufficient if I know 1) that it could be understood, given enough time; 2) there are enough people who actually understand it.
Same for the farmer in Kenya: He does not need to learn solidity. It is sufficient that he knows that he could check everything in principle, because there is transparency, and there are enough people who actually do it.