Why wouldn’t an insurance company want to keep 20% of premiums covering ransom payments ? They stand to loose future premiums if paying ransoms is NOT broadly

Why wouldn’t an insurance company want to keep 20% of premiums covering ransom payments ? They stand to loose future premiums if paying ransoms is NOT broadly seen as a viable option. Sure, in the short term, they hate customers that make a lot of claims. But those claims, in aggregate, are the fuel for their 20% skimming… If nobody paid ransom, why would they want insurance coverage? And if no insurance covered it, they wouldn’t be able to skim off the corresponding premiums…