> What really ticks me off is there are seemingly no levers to pull to financially convey to an insurance company that I will only ever call them for a large ca

> What really ticks me off is there are seemingly no levers to pull to financially convey to an insurance company that I will only ever call them for a large catastrophic loss. Raising deductibles on car or home affects the rates very little. This doesn't really surprise me. I suspect the vast majority of their payout dollars go to catastrophic loss. It takes a _lot_ of small claims to add up to the same amount as a total loss (value of the house, value of the stuff inside, cost of temporary housing, etc). I don't think they're cheating you the way you think they are. I used to work for a very large insurance company that had a line of home insurance. We made almost nothing on premiums, we paid out basically every dollar we got in premiums. Our profitable line of business was investing the premiums we collected until we had to pay them out. That seemed a very fair deal to me. The company manages and orchestrates spreading the risk among members in exchange for the profits from investing premiums. Customers are only "losing" what they could have gained by investing the money, which would be a crazy thing to do instead of getting insurance. > Whereas now, if you've made the choice to drive around an aluminum framed car that is going to require expensive disassembly, inspection, and rework for what would have otherwise been a fender bender, then you yourself should be paying the increased premiums to cover that cost. I wonder what the impact would be spread across the insurance pool. I bet it's not that much. Honestly, if I were going to guess, I would wager that medical bills are the vast majority of auto insurance payouts. Even expensive cars are cheap relative to an ICU visit. $100k cars on the road are uncommon, but every single person on or near a road could rack up a few million in medical debt.