Yes, and the justification is called the Kelly Criterion.
This formalizes the idea that a catastrophic event can be worse for someone who doesn't have the resources to absorb it than for someone who can. It can also be used to tell how much you should bet on a positive-expected-value coin flip.
The coin flip case is easier to think about. Suppose you where offered a coin flip you can repeat every day for up to 30 years. You flip a coin, on tails you lose everything you wager. On heads, you earn twice what you bet, plus a 1% of what you bet.
The expected value of the coin flip when you bet X is then 1.01X
If you bet X at the start and "let it ride", you'd on average end up with (1.01)^365, or a yield of x38.8! Throw any money you can at this!
On the other hand, if you bet everything you have, the probability you'd have anything at the end of the year is 1 in 2^365, or over 1 in 1 googal (1 followed by 100 zeros).
Clearly you should avoid this bet, and it will almost certainly bankrupt you.
Both of these conclusions are reasonable, but they disagree. The right solution, in practice, is to bet something in the middle.
The Kelly Criterion tells you how much to bet, as a fraction of your net worth, on such a positive-sum bet. Basically it tells you to maximize the expected ln of your net worth.
Betting everything makes you average -infinity and something finite; so it tells you not to do this.
In this case, we want to maximize ln(A+X*(1.01)) + ln(A-X)
Kelly says that X/A should be (bp-q)/b, where p is win chance, q lose chance (both 0.5 in this case), and b is the payoff (1.01), or in this case basically 1% of your bankroll (well, actually 0.01/1.01).
Supposing you start with 100$. Then if you bet 1% of your bankroll and get a 0.5% expected yield, you end up with an average return of 1.00005. Repeated 365 gives you 1.8% return per year. Not the 39-fold average return you get by betting everything, but this strategy does not require going bankrupt.
Insurance can be reframed as a Kelly question. Imagine if the starting case was "fully insured against all loss".
Then, dropping your insurance becomes a positive-expected-value Kelly bet. Kelly will tell you how much insurance you should have, which can vary from "all of it" to "nothing", given the price of insurance and your ability to recover from the insured-against disaster.
All of this becomes more complex when you add in bankruptcy and the ability to work after losing your assets and the like.
The conclusion ends up being that things like house insurance is worthwhile for "middle class" people in the industrialized world at reasonable prices. For rich people, the insurance is no longer worthwhile (it becomes better to "self insure"), and for poor bankruptcy ends up being a better choice than paying for insurance.
As it happens, people owning your Mortgage (for houses) and society (traffic accidents) ends up paying when you cannot afford to, so laws and contracts sometimes force you to take out insurance when Kelly says not to.