What type of insurance would protect you against the Amazon 1p bug?
I believe the appropriate recourse in this scenario is to bring a court case for breach of contract.   The 1p repricing issue has been admitted as an error out of scope of the purpose of the software.
"You don't mention what kind of insurance you're talking about, but I'll just address one angle on the question. For some kinds of insurance, such as health insurance (in the US), auto insurance, and homeowner's insurance, you may be insuring against an event that you would not be able to pay for without the insurance.  For instance, if you are at fault in a car accident and injure someone, they could sue you for $100,000.  A lot of people don't have $100,000.  So it's not even a matter of ""I'll take the risk of having to pay it when the time comes""; if the time comes, you could lose virtually everything you own and still have to pay more from future earnings.  You're not just paying $X to offset a potential loss of $Y; you're paying $X to offset a potential derailment of your entire life.  It is plausible that you could assign a reasonable monetary value to that potential ""cost"" that would mean you actually come out ahead in the insurance equation. It is with smaller expenses (such as insuring a new cellphone against breakage) that insurance becomes harder to justify.  When the potential nonfinancial ""collateral damage"" of a bad event are less, you must justify the insurance expenses on the financial consequences only, which, as you say, is often difficult." Here's how the police currently operate...  You are forced to fund them with your tax money, but if they fail to protect you or your property, you get NOTHING in return. If you pay a home owner's insurance company, and you get robbed or your house burns down... they fully reimburse you. What exactly are we getting for our police dollars? They come *after* the crime, and then put the criminal in jail at *our expense*. We lose both ways. It's pretty clear that insurance is preferable to police, and that insurance companies should expand their operations to include active security personnel to patrol their insured properties and people, while the government's police force should be disbanded and give us that portion of our taxes back.  I just want to get more people realizing what a con job government's monopoly services are in terms of what we get for our money. Every where the government services interface with us they involve forcing us to stop in some capacity. Their transportation vehicles stop in the middle of the roads (school buses and city buses), and their solution to intersections (stoplights) are pathetic in comparison to roundabouts which don't leave half the cars stopped at any given time. They spend $4-6 Trillion in wars against desert morons because the other branch of govt which was supposed to round up immigrants who overstayed their visas failed. WE pay for their failure. We've been forced to pay over $16 TRILLION over 50 years for welfare checks to people who are more likely stupid than intrinsically needy (i.e. poor due to circumstances rather than basic stupidity). $16,000 BILLION we could have had to fund on the things we want more of, such as space research, roads, better technology. I think you are addressing it the wrong way around. Insurance - in its basic idea - is supposed to protect you from exceptional and potentially life-changing financial situations; not from day-to-day cost. That means that covering the first 1000 $ is pretty much useless; for any serious sickness the insurance would be without merit. For example, it makes sense to insure your house against fire; the premium is small compared to the potential damage, which works because the chance of a fire is also small. If you extend a fire insurance to cover dropped glasses, or broken TV sets, it becomes quickly a bad idea - chances for these events are higher, so insurance cost go up (and the events are easier to fake too). Insurance should cover the large damage with low risk, never the small damage with more risk. The only reason the latter exist is that people don't understand it, and insurances make money on it, so they offer it. Apply this to your insurance idea, and the right way would be: Pay 50 $ to cover any cost over 10000 $; Pay 100$ to cover any cost over 5000 $; Pay 200 $ to cover any cost over 2500 $; And so on (all numbers are taken from thin air as an example). I would love if there is an relatively cheap insurance that covers anything above 10000 $ (or even a higher threshold); they don't exist because there is not enough money to make for insurance companies. Fair point.  I think malpractice insurance is more to protect the patient than the doctor, even though the doctor pays the premiums   The government requires it so they can't kill or injury a patient and then just declare bankruptcy without paying damages.  If claims were allowed for negligence that insurer would be creating what's known as a moral hazard issue and there would essentially be nothing stopping corporations/executives from constantly screwing over the public.  That insurer would be bankrupt in no time. I get the point you are trying to make, but Walmart is a multi billion dollar company, this would never happen, even if Amazon tried, Walmart could outbid them.  Net neutrality protects the small companies that can't throw around millions of dollars. If you were to create a startup to compete with Amazon or Walmart, without net neutrality they could pay to throttle your website and effectively kill your business. I think it is, unless you have another protection. For example, I have a legal plan sponsored by my employer that amongst other things, covers representation in case of audits for personal taxes. If, however, you don't have any other legal plan to cover this, I'd suggest getting the TurboTax audit protection. Hiring a professional to represent you in case of an audit will cost several hundreds of dollars per hour. Of course chances are slim, but that's the nature of insurance. "&gt; Let's just say the insurance industry knows a lot more about underwriting than you do.  I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement. I work in insurance (first as a consultant, before 'retiring' to work in insurance distribution a few years ago), and I know that our industry frequently uses flawed or outdated methodologies due to the simple fact that insurance companies are very conservative and *very* resistant to change when it comes to changes to their core business. Unless you can show a direct, negative impact on the bottom line caused by the currently used method, you are unlikely to make any changes at all. In this case, if the entire US car insurance industry is using the same flawed system, it won't affect a single company if they also stick to it.   Until 1996, before the current system was introduced, insurance companies in Germany used to rate liability insurance for cars (almost) exclusively by engine power output. The industry had known that this method was fundamentally flawed since at least the late 1980s (comprehensive and partial coverage had been rated by the 'new' system for a few years at this point, which had also taken years to work out), but it took additional years of planning, negotiations and cooperation by the entire industry to change to the new system for liability.   So please, do not ever assume that ""the insurance companies are the experts, they know what they are doing!"". It might very well be the case that they are stuck with flawed/outdated systems simply because there is no sufficiently strong impulse to change what they do.   The current Tesla rate adjustment situation is a wonderful example of this - it apparantly took AAA *5 years* since the Model S first came out to realise that their initial estimate was wrong (it seems unlikely that the accident rate or repair costs have suddenly changed over the last year) and take appropriate actions. By late 2013, there were easily enough Teslas on the road (about 20,000) to get realiable data, yet nothing happened for nearly another 4 years." "In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance.  At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000.  In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000.  I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit   against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his   Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a   malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke   and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This   is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password,   since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America   account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that   Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his   bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that   was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product   databases back in 2003. Ouch.   But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software.  How safe is banking if you don't do online banking?  In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information.  So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss.  Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends.  I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed.  Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying ""lawsuit"" is not an option for everyone.  How often does this occur?  I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork.  The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money.  Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day.  You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times.  Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had!  From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any   negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out   was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she   passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue.  What can you do?  Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late.  Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase.  If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money."