The standard two arguments for the asymmetric risks of offering insurance are adverse selection and moral hazard. Note that these claims risk being a fully-general argument, as this will all else equal be a good argument against all insurance (and indeed is taught that way in econ textbooks), but insurance companies can just increase rates to adjust for this.
Iām sure this is also covered in the literature, but having an organization with deep pockets cover the insurance also makes your org a juicier target for lawsuits than usual, in addition to the standard arguments.
The standard two arguments for the asymmetric risks of offering insurance are adverse selection and moral hazard. Note that these claims risk being a fully-general argument, as this will all else equal be a good argument against all insurance (and indeed is taught that way in econ textbooks), but insurance companies can just increase rates to adjust for this.
Iām sure this is also covered in the literature, but having an organization with deep pockets cover the insurance also makes your org a juicier target for lawsuits than usual, in addition to the standard arguments.