Comment by kube-system

That sounds like some sort of urban legend that originates from people repeating what other people think they know about how insurance works... like the long debunked "red cars cost more to insure".

It really doesn't pass the sniff test, because insurers don't need to know how many seats a car has to determine whether or not a vehicle is a sports car. The make and model is sufficient to determine this. Insurers already have a list of all known mass produced vehicles and their attributes.

Also, most insurers don't rate "sports cars" as more expensive than other cars, outright, because sports cars are not overall actually riskier to insure than non-sports cars. The risk of the driver matters quite a bit more than the car. If you look at IIHS loss data, you'll find that cheap vehicles marketed to subprime markets often have higher liability loss rates than untrendy sports cars marketed to old men.

e.g. Late model Porsche 911s and Corvettes have long topped the least risky in terms of property damage liability according to IIHS data. Why? My guess is that the only people buying these vehicles new are rich old dudes who drive them carefully on Sundays and pay attention while doing so. But despite also being a similarly powerful car, the Dodge Charger Hellcat is one of the most risky. But it appeals to a very different crowd.