Why wouldn't they like PPF? It protects the car from damage aka saves them money. Seems odd. Anyways, I don't think PPF factors in one way or the other when it comes to insurance in the US. I don't think it factors in much either when it comes to resale other than the fact my paint will be nicer 5-10 years down the line vs the next guy who doesn't have it. Probably not 8k nicer but I plan to keep the car for life so it's more for my peace of mind.
I can only answer with what I have read re PPF and insurance: If you have a collision (God forbid) rather than a minor fender bender, the PPF will also be damaged, its removal will add to labour cost and its replacement is a further additional cost.
Insurers, again hearsay on my part, are maybe accepting PPF cars but with an increase in premium or accepting to insure with but all and any PPF costs excluded from future claim settlements.
What I would like to know is the effect on a third party claim - obviously, any accident that the august members of this forum have, will be caused by the other driver- so, here's the rub,
if my own insurer has excluded PPF from cover,
would the third party insurer be legally bound to pay either?
PS Motor insurers are still getting their sh1t together around EVs in general ( they see problems rather than opportunities ) with to be fair, notable exceptions) and will be holding a wet finger aloft, thinking of a number and doubling it for the premium.
Of course, the competitive spirit will kick in - may have already. However, with the current EDD changes, I shall stay clear of online quoting engines for a while because, to use the phrase which seems to sum up acceptance of things over which we have little influence : " It is what it is"