In the specific example from AXA the payments didn't go via the blockchain, so there is absolutely no advantage to it here. If the payment also is handled via

In the specific example from AXA the payments didn't go via the blockchain, so there is absolutely no advantage to it here. If the payment also is handled via the blockchain, there is a large number of potential concerns here. For me, I don't see how the really minor benefit here would be worth the rather big unknown risks. One important aspect here is that in fully automated systems like this, exploits are also much more efficient and can affect many more people at once. It is also not clear to me how this would work for insurance at all. For automated and verifiable payment you need to deposit the funds into the contract somehow, and that is simply not how insurance works. If the insurance companies had do lock down funds like this, that business model simply would not exist. So in practice this would have to be some mechanism that only deposits a fraction of the funds. And then I, as a consumer that bought some insurance there would also be vulnerable if someone cleaned out that pool of money, e.g. by exploiting a flawed oracle or risk estimation process. I don't understand enough of the details here to actually judge the risk, but to me that is a point against the entire thing.