Far be it from me to defend the scumbag industry that is insurance, but there is at least some kind of rationale for putting up premiums even in the case of a no-fault incident.
When I was younger and even stupider than I am now, I got rear-ended by a Rover that wasn't paying attention. It ended up costing me, and great was my indignation. But it did occur to me later that one of the reasons for the incident was that I hadn't been fully paying attention, and had had to slam on the anchors pretty sharpish so's not to hit the car in front. Chummy behind me should still have stopped...but he would have had a greater chance of doing so if I'd been a bit more with it, and had braked more gently, and earlier. Actuarial tables take this kind of thing into account, and conclude, without any concern about 'fairness', justice or anything moral whatsoever, that the fact I was involved in this 'no-fault'incident meant I was more likely to get involved in some kind of incident in future. And they would be right.
My main beef with the insurance industry, FWIW, is the way it penalises loyalty to an astonishing extent, massively increasing the premiums paid by loyal customers however low-risk. This really does strike me as blatantly unethical. Premiums should, if nothing else, reflect risk and potential cost. To simply gouge people too trustworthy (or even arguably gullible) to shop around seems just immoral to me.