Large companies are usually self insured by posting a surety bond with the state they operate in.
In this case Amazon was their own insurance company - now if her insurer was involved or not is a matter of how she chose to approach the issue, and whatever coverages she has.
Why it just costs more. The insurers profit is removed from the issue.
You only need insurance if the loass would materially effect you. Amazon and most Fortune 500 companies are big enough to self insure definitely for small amounts like motor. Often buildings are self insured and only put out for reinsurance if very big e.g. a whole skyscraper.
Because insurers decide if who is at fault and to pay or not. This system is creating bad incentives since the entity at fault and the entity deciding who is at fault are the same on one side.
The problem with American society, as your comment reflects, is that culturally every discussion always goes back to money.
But money, while quite a good proxy for many things, reduces the human experience to a simplistic model.
It's like game theory: beautiful in a lab, but a parody of life interactions IRL.
You have to shape the system so that the emerging behaviors take in consideration justice, happiness, sustainability, etc.
> Because insurers decide if who is at fault and to pay or not.
In my experience, insurers decide the other party is at fault, unless they are proven wrong. As such, there's no reason for a company to _not_ self insure, if they have the bankroll for it.
In this case Amazon was their own insurance company - now if her insurer was involved or not is a matter of how she chose to approach the issue, and whatever coverages she has.