Well, denial is usually reserved for rare cases, my guess is that they want to be able to use it as grounds for denial without fearing prosecution but probably reserve it only for extreme cases. There really is no reasonable rate someone can pay or be charged to deal with say, eight or nine hospitalizations over the course of a decade along with potential psychological treatment. I sincerely doubt they are automatically denying insurance to people who have or one two incidents. Most likely - I'll retract this if someone has solid evidence otherwise - this is being done to keep trial lawyers from being able to sue for discriminatory practice if an insurance company doesn't want to offer coverage to some dreafully high liability. We also have to recognize that repeat cases tend to have, as un-PC as it sounds, a certain component of self-infliction, like smoking or drinking, they keep returning to that environment. But more importantly, due to the high percentage of these victims who tend to lie about the source of their injuries, the insurance companies can't really do what they might otherwise do, and sue the person who inflicted the injuries, even if someone admits their husband beat the tar out of them, the insurance company still has a crappy hand to play, since they'd basically be suing the victim in a joint household. I suspect overall they'd rather just be able to make a policy to just not insure people who are high risk.