I doubt we'd see much at all of a difference, since large (and even most small) businesses are already insured against losses subject to underwriter enforcement

I doubt we'd see much at all of a difference, since large (and even most small) businesses are already insured against losses subject to underwriter enforcement of actuarial policy. If we take the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from 2010, certainly one of the largest potential liabilities we've seen, BP's liability was capped at $75M.[1] BP ultimately waived its liability as a condition of settling with affected parties, but I think I'm justified in thinking this arrangement was just a particularly expensive PR cost. Insurance providers looked at BP's minuscule liability and were happy to sign the papers. I'm guessing the underwriters had only minimal conditions for the insurance policy. In a world where BP's liabilities were uncapped, I'm guessing the insurance underwriters (and ultimately actuaries) would have taken a much closer look at BP's operations on the oil rig. If someone wants to propose lifting statutory caps on liability, or even creating liability for e.g. sea level rise, I'd be fully in favor. That solution is like a scalpel rather than a machete (such as revoking limited liability for corporate entities). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02liability.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02liability.html