It's not that the data itself is meaningless, its that there is so much data that it is not cost-effective to litigate questions that might arise. If I have say $2.5M in coverage and run over someone with my car and they want to question my blood sugar, my deposition would take weeks! "Oh yes, that number, well, let me tell you, that number was because..." Then the other side would have to have an expert chat about each number for say $500/ hour then maybe my side would want an expert too? More $$$. So then, all they'd be able to say is either "acidrock23 has risky tendencies that made him run over this person..." vs. "acidrock23 was smote by a random BG fluctuation that, in turn, smote the pedestrian..." for which acidrock23 would not be liable, at all, under Illinois law. I think that in practice, insurers may be a bit spooked by the suggestion that PWD might not be liable at all for their actions. I had one case that had some potential to explore these sort of issues and the defense attorney (perhaps suspecting a lot of labor...) was interested but it didn't work out for some interesting tactical reasons and the case settled. If the chips were down, I would totally look to drag a health insurance company into a tort claim, griping about their lack of support, constitutional rights, challenges dealing with phone menus and anything else I could think of to get out of something like that.