Medical claims and property damage are very low for the E.
Comprehensive (all other except collision) is fairly low.
Collision coverage was about 20% higher than the '04 Camry I had prior to my '05 E due to the E being totaled (while protecting its occupants) somewhat more often than other vehicles. My Camry was a symbol 12 and the E was a symbol 16 on the PA scale (higher #'s equal more expense overall on claims)
Check out the IIHS website for their really cool graphic on claims rates for all vehicles.
Interesting info at the IIHS site. Looks like most of the 4wd versions of the SUVs (Element, Rav4, etc) have better ratings than the FWD versions. And I am glad I don't have a Hummer H3. Really lousy numbers.
I'd take the IIHS summary numbers with a grain of salt. That 15% difference between 4WD and 2WD Elements, with the higher-cost vehicle lower, is hiding something statistically significant in their data collection. My thinking is there may a strong geographic component, so using the table as a barometer for what relative rates to expect locally might be misleading.
The H3 observation is fascinating, because damage to others (collision liability) is a big red flag, versus, say, the GMC Envoy, which beneath the skin is the same vehicle.
MikeQBF has a point-location and age of the average driver slant results.
The info is useful, as long as you filter it properly.
Case in point- the 1999 to 2007 Chevy Silverado Ext Cab trucks have horrible frontal offset barrier crash test results- however-looking at IIHS claims data- the Silverado has very low injury claims. This means- the Silverado most often is in a crash with a smaller, lighter vehicle- not a fixed barrier- and the smaller vehicle gets the worst of it.
Check the results for a number of the IIHS small cars that are top safety picks, and you'll see higher than average injury claims- esp. if they car is a model favored by those in the 18 to 25 year old crowd.