No, they'd win because there'd be fewer fires they have to pay out for, or the fires that do happen would cause less damage to the properties.
>In this case they’d probably charge you for insuring way more than you need, or they wouldn’t speak to you at all. I have some evidence that my own insurer wants to sell me "off-the-shelf plans", no need to spend money on their own actuary.
People have a zero risk bias & the ins. co. knows it. The people who run that ad with that bird know it.
It doesn't stand to reason that people wouldn't insure their homes against fires just because they installed fire-resistant materials.
>The insureds could calculate the odds & ask to be insured against only the risk they are still incurring.
I’ve considered hiring an actuary so I’d know my odds, but I have other fish to fry.
But, yeah, the smart money is on the big guys.
If you lived in an ungrounded house, almost certainly you would be pressured to buy GFCIs. Same with the odds & the fear, if you look this up.
>This is the story behind the exploding air bag uproar.
The chances of anyone dying from this is down in noise but my car maker sends me a garish notice
[Me & my loved ones may die horribly!] every 20 days (which we all paid for) for years now, begging & threatening me to get my car into a dealership.
Once they have my car they can extract whatever money out of me that they want, for any & all reasons, outlandish or not.
I expect these places are run by are intelligent sociopaths, the dumb sociopaths go to prison for fraud, or worse.
I’m glad I got that off my chest.