I'm not sure how it is a good deal for the insurer who will have to pay for loss of craft.

It's only a good deal if somebody else ends up footing these bills. I don't believe that England's insurers were so stupid that they would bear such losses for decades without doing something about these.

you are correct in that the Wikipedia page specifically states that legislative change came after about three decades of this (and suggests it was at the behest of insurers):

> They were generally eliminated in the 1870s with the success of reforms championed by British MP Samuel Plimsoll. [...] Plimsoll stated in the British Parliament, "The Secretary of Lloyd's [Insurance] tells a friend of mine that he does not know a single ship which has been broken up voluntarily by the owners in the course of 30 years on account of its being worn out".[5]

I don't understand what prevented insurers from not insuring these ships? Were they obliged to insure everything thrown at them?

> A courageous member of the British parliament named Samuel Plimsoll tried for years to get legislation passed to improve safety and maintenance on ships, and to regulate the overloading of cargo encouraged by greedy owners to maximize profits at the expense of safety. He was stymied at every turn because many ship owners were MPs themselves and loathed passing new laws that would be to their disadvantage; they were making fortunes in the shipping business.

Looks like another example where the idea that private interests would ever be adequate for regulating safety is provably false.

I'm still not sure what was in for Lloyd et all.