> Wouldn't it be more efficient to put the risk on the bank, so that it is the bank that seeks insurance to cover that risk? No, because the value stored in th

> Wouldn't it be more efficient to put the risk on the bank, so that it is the bank that seeks insurance to cover that risk? No, because the value stored in the boxes differs by orders of magnitude and the bank doesn't even know the value. $200/yr is just not a reasonable amount of payment to take on a 10s of millions of dollars liability, and most box customers wouldn't pay whatever price would make that liability reasonable. (Based on the 500x annual cap mentioned in the article you could imagine that the bank would want $20k/yr for a $10m liability)