Is there a word for this? Is it simply an inability to empathize (i.e., to see the world from the company's point-of-view) or is there a larger fallacy at work (e.g., a belief that the world operates according to some standard of fairness)?
Look at it this way: let's pretend an accident (regardless of fault) actually lowered the chances of a subsequent accident (maybe you're scared into good driving), and the longer you drove without an accident, the more likely you are to have one (maybe you become complacent or something). In this situation, your rates would go down when you got in an accident. Because it's not that they're trying to punish you, but rather they're trying to just charge based on the X% chance you're going to be in an accident, plus Y% overhead/profit.
An example might be the very common rear-end shunt at a roundabout (or "circle" in South Africa, not sure if you have 'em in the US) - an experienced driver will [usually] pull away confidently without hesitating. A less experienced driver can misjudge more often and set off only to suddenly stop, leaving the car behind to crash into them. Strictly road-lore says the rear driver should have observed better, they are liable as they crashed into a [near] stationary vehicle - but the foremost driver is hardly without blame. Yes, the rear vehicles insurance pays out for all damage; but the insurer of the front vehicle would be right in judging them a greater insurance _risk_.
It doesn't always work (some good drivers will just get unlucky and be hit by cars they can't avoid) but that's a rough version of a rationale.