@LukeAlmighty I think they had 700 previous complaints and when asked "how many burn complaints before you change your policy" they answered they didnt think about it
Its generally understood by lawyers that the damages were punitive because of, no paying out medical bill at cost in a timely matter and not reviewing complaints and internal research.

You can debate about how insurance should work, some places have both cars are responsible for their own medical bill, and the insurance companys want to push for safety features or you assign fault, in which case they want to force "safe driving" somehow and generally meaning you have to force everyone to buy insurance. Trade off which you like more.

Mcdonals had insurance but choose not to use it for an old women needing surgery. This may confuse the European mind, where the state didn't fund the old womens surgery, but this is like the car insurance debates. When faced with a bad roll of the dice the jury wanted money from what was on the table under the current scheme. Sadily home insurance is suppose to cover the neighbors kids jumping over a fence and drowning in your pool in the american system; that got complicated because it was a drive thru and the accident wasnt a car crash.

Your asking juries to say no to a planned for 700th case condemning someone to poverty; they choose not to. You could easily hate parts of the law that limited it down to those two choice, but those were they choices the jury had.