In short to deny the existence and/or relevance of all of the above quotes, indicates you are trolling or have not read their terms. I think trolling because you have made several posts claiming the law says something, but can't read/understand a legal contract and it's consequences?
You realise you're obliged to do all the same stuff if your insurance company asks too right? They're not "roping you into" anything, they're just acting in your stead and obviously may need some co-operation from you - namely everything your insurance company would need.
Trolling would be more claiming that you have to act in the best interests of an insurance company even when it prejudices your own interests, when in actuality the insurance company is merely subrogating your interests, and where the policy does not fully cover the extent of loss you are entitled to separately seek reparations.
Insurance companies could deal with these companies pretty quickly if they felt so inclined - stop the stupid practice of charging extra for providing a hire car during repairs in not-at-fault incidents given they're just going to recover the cost off the at-fault party or insurer anyway. They do it in Australia since they realised it was idiotic not to (and look, R2D's prices in Australia are much more reasonable... I wonder why?) - it's just blatant profiteering. I mean it's not like they're even different insurers from those Australian companies!