If you are paying the company to protect your house from fire, obviously they should actually protect your house. Hopefully, they would offer an SLA for how qui

If you are paying the company to protect your house from fire, obviously they should actually protect your house. Hopefully, they would offer an SLA for how quickly they'll get to your house, the quality of service, etc. But in the case postulated above, you aren't paying the company to protect your house from fire. You are paying the company as an insurance company. Fire protection is just something they do in order to reduce their losses. Also, it is not likely they would simply decide not to protect your house. It is more likely they would have fewer fire stations, older equipment, etc that puts your house at a higher risk then you prefer. But my point really was: regardless of who does it, some houses will end burning because it was too expensive to save them.