Who says more dangerous equals more expensive? Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person.

Or more commonly, someone who drives a compact car drunk habitually through a dangerous neighborhood is higher risk than a high-income person with a good driving record who drives a heavy car in a quiet suburb.

The people who cause the most insurance losses are often people who really don't have their lives together. They're driving cheap pieces of junk and wrecking them frequently.

> Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person.

Maybe, but I am rather skeptical of this claim being true under most circumstances.

And even if it is true that the payout from insurance is bigger in the case of injury than death, there's potentially lost revenue if the insured goes to jail.

>there's potentially lost revenue if the insured goes to jail.

It is surprisingly hard to end up in jail after killing someone with your car in the US. As long as you weren't drunk, weren't doing something crazy like going 40mph over the speed limit, and didn't flee the scene, the most you are generally looking at is a misdemeanor if you are charged with anything at all.

Likely the victim's medical or comprehensive insurance - most states only require very small liability limit policies that won't really cover much in a big crash.

California, for instance only requires ~30k injury coverage and ~5k property damage, not even enough to replace a cheap used car when totaled these days.

Strong agree that California’s minimums for insurance don’t make sense. I’m constantly surrounded by $75,000+ cars and have bumped up coverage amounts considerably