Why do only motor insurers employ “No Claims Discounts”?
"Some people are better drivers than others.  A collision can happen to anybody, even good drivers. The collision might not be your fault at all; it might be entirely the fault of the other party. However, the best drivers do a better job of avoiding collisions in situations where the other drivers on the road are doing the wrong things.  The ""no claims discount"" is a way to identify and reward those good drivers, as they have a lower likelihood of claims in the future." "Discounting premiums based on some past history is not unique to auto policies.  Other insurers will discount premiums based on past claims history they just don't shout about it as a marketing means to attract customers.  Life insurance is underwritten based on your health history; if you want to consider your ""preferred"" underwriting status based on your clear health history a ""discount based on your healthy habits"" you're free to do so.  All sorts of lines of insurance use all sorts of things to determine an underwriting classes.  The fact that auto insurers trumpet specific discounts does not mean the same net effect is not available on other lines of coverage. Most states require auto rates and discounts to be filed and approved with some state regulator, some regulatory bodies even require that certain discounts exist.  You could likely negotiate with your business insurance underwriters about a better rate and if the underwriters saw fit they could give you a discount.  Auto insurers can offer discounts but are generally beholden to whatever rate sheet is on file with the applicable regulatory body. For the person who downvoted, here's a link to a spreadsheet outlining one of the CA department of insurance allowable rating factor sheets related to auto insurance."
Most of this advice applies to the UK, where I work in motor insurance pricing for a large personal lines insurer, but a lot of it is more general. A loyal customer is usually an overpaying customer. The guiding priciple most financial services companies go by is that there's no point rewarding loyalty except to create it where none exists, i.e. by giving massive discounts to desirable new customers.  Shop around every time your policy comes up for renewal, and whenever your circumstances change. Never allow your policy to automatically renew - you may be charged a higher premium by default if you do! Phone up your current insurer and haggle to see if they can beat the best quote you find - their agents will usually be able offer a discount. If applicable in your country, use price comparison websites. Use at least two - different insurers sometimes offer different rates on different sites, competing harder on some than on others, especially if the price comparison website happens to be owned by one of the insurance companies that quotes on it. One example of this is http://www.confused.com, which is owned by RSA group, a major insurer. If there are no price comparison websites for your country, try purchasing your policy through a broker. They'll get quotes from a panel of insurers and offer you the cheapest. They can be especially helpful if you have a problematic driving history, e.g. drink-driving convictions, as many mainstream insurers will decline to quote for such people. Other suggestions Chris Rea's answer is a good starting point, but I would disagree about cutting back on cover. In the UK at least, many insurers often charge an equal or greater amount for lower levels of cover, because the people who choose these policies tend to be worse risks. Re switching vehicles - a cheap old car will not necessarily be much cheaper to insure than a new expensive one, as you can still injure people with it or crash into other people's cars, and the newer car will probably have better safety features. However, a less powerful and smaller vehicle typically poses less of a threat to others and will therefore be cheaper to insure. Another tactic not mentioned so far is 'reverse fronting'. 'Fronting', where the main driver poses as an additional driver and nominates a less risky driver as the main driver, is illegal, but the reverse - adding a less risky driver as an additional driver - is legal and can sometimes reduce premiums. This is because only one of you can drive the car at any one time, and sometimes it'll be the less risky one. So, especially if you're male and aged < 25, see if adding your safest parent as a named driver makes a difference. If you have the choice of storing your car on a driveway or on the street, get quotes for both and see which is cheaper. If you live in an area where burglary is commonplace, thieves are more likely to steal cars left on driveways, as they can break into the owner's home and steal the keys. If not, the driveway is better, as it reduces the risk of a collision. If you have previously driven another vehicle (e.g. motorbike or moped), or if you've been insured as an additional driver on someone else's car, call up insurers directly and ask if they can offer you a no-claims bonus for this. Quotes from price comparison websites tend to limit you to the numbers of years of no-claims you've accrued as a main driver, and may not reflect your full available no-claims bonus. Extreme measures Some insurers give you the option to install a tracking device in your car that can tell them various things, e.g.  Some people may be uncomfortable sharing this much information with their insurer, but for particularly risky drivers (I'm looking at you, males < 25) it can sometimes result in a substantial saving. One insurer that offers this is http://www.insurethebox.com/. Finally, if every insurer you can find is quoting in excess of £10,000 for a year's cover, you may find it cheaper instead to purchase a vintage agricultural vehicle and get it covered on a specialist farmer's policy: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/864501-teen-quoted-17k-for-car-insurance-resorts-to-driving-tractor That's not true - insurance companies can manage that risk and look to Re-insure that risk with very large pools of risk capital through reinsurance.   Government agencies traditionally have not looked to buy insurance but are now starting to insure such catastrophic risks.  I believe the NFIP has some sort of excess risk cover such that if losses are greater than $500 million, then it triggers a payout from large private insurers. because it cost the insurer more, obviously. while this sounds snarky, it's important to realize that actual insurance companies set their insurance rates based on actual historical costs. for some reason people who report low miles have cost the company more dollars per reported mile than people who report high miles. in that sense, insurance is not overpriced. if it were truly overpriced, then an insurer would specialize in such insurance and make a killing on the free market. the more interesting questions is why do drivers who claim to travel very few miles cost the insurance companies so much per mile? that question has a host of possible answers and it's difficult to say which is the largest cost. here are just a few: "Here's what you do without, on the negative side, just for balance: A bill: When I last had comprehensive insurance, it cost something like 3-4% of the value of the car per annum.  (Obviously ymmv enormously but I think that's somewhere near the middle of the range and I'm not especially risky.)  So, compared to the total depreciation and running costs of the car, it's actually fairly substantial.  Over the say 10 years I might keep that car, it adds up to a fair slice of what it will take to buy a replacement. Financial crisis costs: I don't know about you, but my insurance went up something like 30% in recent years, despite the value-insured and the risk going down, said by the insurer to be due to market turmoil.  So, at least hundreds of dollars is just kind of frictional loss, and I'd rather not pay it. Wrangling with the insurer: if you have insurance and a loss, you have to persuade them to pay out, perhaps document the original conditions or the fault, perhaps argue about whether their payment is fair.  I've done this for small (non-automotive) claims, and it added up to more hassle than the incident itself.  Obviously all insurers will claim they're friendly to deal with but until you actually have a big claim you never know. Moral hazard: I know I'm solely responsible for not having my car crashed or stolen.  Somehow that just feels better. Free riders: I've seen people ""fudge"" their insurance claims so that things that shouldn't have been covered were claimed to be.  You might have too.  Buy insurance and you're paying for them. Choice: Insurers are typically going to make the decision for you about whether a claim is repairable or not, and in my experience are reluctant or refuse to just give you the cash amount of the claim. (See also, moral hazard.)  Do it yourself and you can choose whether to live with it, make a smaller or larger repair, or replace the whole vehicle with a second hand one or a brand new one, or indeed perhaps do without a vehicle. A distraction: Hopefully by the time you've been working for a while, a vehicle is not a really large fraction of your net worth.  If you lose 10% of your net worth it's not really nice but - well, you could easily have lost that off the value of your house or your retirement portfolio in recent years.  What you actually need to insure is genuinely serious risks that would seriously change your life if they were lost, such as your ability to work.  For about the same cost as insuring a $x car, you can insure against $x income every year for the rest of your life, and I think it's far more important. If I have a write-off accident but walk away I'll be perfectly happy. And, obviously, liability insurance is important, because being hit for $millions of liabilities could also have a serious impact.   Coverage for mechanical failures: If your 8yo car needs a new transmission, insurance isn't going to help, yet it may cost more than the typical minor collision.  Save the money yourself and you can manage those costs out of the same bucket. Flexibility: If you save up to replace your car, but some other crisis occurs, you can choose to put the money towards that.  If you have car insurance but you have a family medical thing it's no help. I think the bottom line is: insure against costs you couldn't cope with by yourself.  There are people who need a car but can just barely afford it, but if you're fortunate enough not to be in that case you don't really need comprehensive insurance." "Because people are Risk Averse. Suppose that you own an asset worth $10,000 to you.  Suppose that each year, the asset has 1% chance of being stolen (or completely broken).  The expected value is 99% x 10,000 + 1% x $0 = $9,900. This is the average outcome if you do not buy insurance.  Now consider two mutually exclusive outcomes: 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,900 (expected value: $9,900)  Everyone would choose option 2, even though the expected values are the same.  Option 2 is an insurance that cost $100 (Actuarially fair, aka the odds are fair).  Now suppose the insurance costs $150 instead of $100 (despite that the bad probability is still 1%). You are faced with  99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,850 (expected value: $9,850)  Some people would still choose option 2, even though the expected value is actually lower.  The $50 is called Risk Premium, which people are willing to pay in order to avoid uncertainty. The odds are unfair, but the Risk Premium has its value.  That being said, competition between insurance companies would drive down the premium until the insurance is close to actuarially fair, but they have cost to cover (sales, administration, etc), making the odds ""unfair""." There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way. "There are two fundamentally different reasons merchants will give cash discounts. One is that they will not have to pay interchange fees on cash (or pay much lower fees on no-reward debit cards).  Gas stations in my home state of NJ already universally offer different cash and credit prices.  Costco will not even take Visa and MasterCard credit cards (debit only) for this reason. The second reason, not often talked about but widely known amongst smaller merchants, is that they can fail to declare the sale (or claim a smaller portion of the sale) to the authorities in order to reduce their tax liability.  Obviously the larger stores will not risk their jobs for this, but smaller owner-operated (""mom and pop"") stores often will.  This applies to both reduced sales tax liability and income tax liability.  This used to be more limited per sale (but more widespread overall), since tax authorities would look closely for a mismatch between declared income and spending, but with an ever-larger proportion of customers paying by credit card, merchants can take a bigger chunk of their cash sales off the books without drawing too much suspicion. Both of the above are more applicable to TVs than cars, since (1) car salesmen make substantial money from offering financing and (2) all cars must be registered with the state, so alternative records of sales abound.  Also, car prices tend to be at or near the credit limit of most cards, so it is not as common to pay for them in this way." Insurance isn't a product designed to protect against financial loss. The product is designed to allow people to pay a small fee (the premium) for peace of mind. This allows the insured to feel as if their purchase was worthy (they see the potential of loss as a concern and the premiums small enough to allow them to not worry about having a loss). Insurance companies will then seek out insurable risks where the perceived losses far out weight the actual losses (risk assessment). So, you answer is that your friends are paying for peace of mind. So far all insurances start from the perspective of the insurance taker. However, I find it much more intuitive to look from the perspective of the insurance giver: Note that the exact amount may differ, but management fees of a few dozen percent are quite realistic. Note that it is not as unreasonable as it may sound at first, some costs: And of course most insurance companies will want to keep some profit as well. If you are completely risk averse, typically it is only financial beneficial to get insurance if you have a significantly higher risk profile. Examples of this (not an expert on boats): Note that piece of mind may also be worth getting the insurance for, for instance if you frequently put others in the position to crash your boat, and don't want to create an awkward financial discussion when they do. The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons). and not doctors and pharmaceuticals? Hospitals, pharmaceuticals, Med Schools and medical equipement manufacturers all see higher profit margins than insurers. There is a reason people always quote the profit of insurers in terms of real value and not profit margin, its to disguise who is doing the fleecing. "But you aren't driving between your two jobs, you're driving for your job. The better analogy would be ""If I didn't buy commercial insurance, but was hiring myself out to do deliveried then my personal insurance better cover me if I hit someone between deliveries"" It doesn't work that way. There is a reason commercial insurance costs a lot more - when your job is to drive, your risk profile increases significantly. There are specific clauses in personal insurance that they aren't going to cover you if something happens while you are using your car for commercial purposes." As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk.  You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered.  There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance.  The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss.  Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy.  A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around.  The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong.  You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group.  Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses.  They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts.  This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs.  The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people.  The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases.  Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure.  Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection.  If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious.  It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further.  Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it.  You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers.  On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that.  On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for.  (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.)   People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk.  The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered. Actually, most insurance policies DON'T have a cash value if you don't make a claim.  The reason that some life insurance policies do this is that they are really tax sheltered investments posing as insurance.  With that in mind, the root of your question is really whether insurance premiums are wasted if you never make a claim. It really makes no difference if you are talking about EI, Auto, or Homeowner's insurance. My answer to that is no. What you are paying for when you buy insurance is financial risk avoidance. Look at it this way, you don't buy EI as an investment where you hope to get a return on your investment. You are buying the right to be protected against catastrophic financial difficulty associated with losing your job. Whether you claim it or not you did receive that protection. This is what drives me so crazy when I hear people talk about how an insurance company is ripping you off because you paid more in premiums than they paid out in benefits. Of course you did! If most people didn't pay in more than the company paid out there would be no financial interest for someone to form an insurance company. Every insurance company has a pricing factor for every car they insure that along with factors about the driver is used to set rates. The story was that AAA was adjusting it's factor for Tesla models. Insurance companies do this all time as they collect more data. This is only news because people like to talk about Tesla.