[zerni]

There are 3 things this article ignores that are crucial to evaluate your risk/value from insurance.

1) The article ignores individual risk and pooling of such risk.

Insurance is nothing else than a group of people sharing the cost of claims. If you are a worse risk than the average person in said pool it’s worth insuring (even without excess) if everyone pays the same. The insurers will use signals to price you but most of the time they are pretty rudimentary.

2) That a higher excess is a good way to reduce cost makes sense generally. It drives down claims frequency and thereby operational cost for insurers but in reality how much is that cost? Is it a big enough lever for you to be happy to give away financial flexibility? High risk activities or products make sense to insure if this adds value to you. That’s harder to quantify in numbers.

3) Assuming every insurance runs big margins is a fallacy. Motor insurance in the U.K. runs at a loss for years but insurers see it as an entry point to other products like home insurance where they have healthier underwriting profits.