You're talking rubbish.
Insurers do not make any differences in premiums between the two set ups making it fairly obvious that there is no additional risk.
Look I don't want to get into a silly arguement about this...because actually I suspect in reality that our views on taildraggers are pretty much the same. A little while ago a friend of mine started doing his PPL on a Super Cub and on his first solo he ground looped it and damaged it to the point that he had to complete his PPL on the C152.
I don't know about this country...but in the US insurance companies
do recognise that taildraggers are more likely to be crashed. I was talking to some US pilot in passing a while ago and he said that due to his low hours he couldn't get insurance for a Husky that he dreamed of buying. Why do you think that schools in the US are so 'funny' about taildraggers? Even if the actual risk is the same, the
percieved risk is greater.
I quite agree about the DC-3...but the experience of the pilot is not relevant to what I was saying since I made it clear that I meant 'all things being equal'.
Perhaps what I should have said was 'To the fairly low experience pilot the taildragger is more risky than the nose wheel'. Once the pilot has lots of hours on taildraggers, or if he has always flown taildraggers then the risk difference disappears.