&gt;<i>&quot;The thing is, insurance is almost always meant to spread around risk from random events...&quot;</i><p>Health &#x27;insurance&#x27; covers many predictable issues, such as eye glasses and continuing care issues, but I will grant you that insurance is generally best used to hedge against risk.  A number of national US insurance providers offer policies which cover employee suits, so it must be a large, insurable market.[1]<p>&gt;<i>&quot;If an employer is explicitly trying to minimize their risk and costs by mandating arbitration how can you ever trust them to pick an unbiased arbiter? If an agent is trying to maximize their outcomes by forcing arbitration, why would they then chose any arbiter that isn&#x27;t more likely to side with them?&quot;</i><p>There are many kinds of risk which one might try to minimize; one of these risks might be that of a long, drawn-out civil jury trial which can take a long time to be seen, and have a completely unpredictable outcome.  Having an arbitrator decide against you for a reasonable sum might be preferable to devoting time and resources to a trial and investor relations disaster over many years (even if the verdict is in your favor).  In addition, having a defined process from the outset may help the damaged party get their issue resolved quickly and easily; as a long civil suit can be ruinous to an individual (even if they win).  In short, real people are not risk-tolerant robots.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nationwide.com&#x2F;employment-practices-liability-insurance.jsp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nationwide.com&#x2F;employment-practices-liability-in...</a>