It's worth noting that it would be better to compare the Tesla in a crash to an ICE in a crash. In this case the Tesla performs worse. Only about 4% of car fires are due to crashes, so it's more like 7,500 cars a year due to crash catch fire. Better than Tesla, as ICEs are at 1 car in 33,750 compared to the current ~1 in 9,000.
But, it's not a big problem, because most cars in any crash severe enough to start a fire would be already wrecked anyway, no major economic loss. The Tesla did well by warning the driver of the fault condition (admirable that it managed to retain traction power despite such severe damage alone!) and it only burned slowly, cabin never reached in all three instances, compared to an ICE fire, which would most likely burn rapidly if due to a crash (fuel leak would be expected, that can mean car engulfed in 15~30 seconds.) Tesla will also cover any battery fire under warranty so insurance shouldn't be affected.
What Tesla has to hope doesn't happen is spontaneous fires, like when charging, parked or driving normally. i.e. like the Fisker Karma.Just reading some of their patents on just their battery technology gives you an idea on how seriously they take this. The battery management system has got to be one of the most advanced ever. Multiple coolant loops, layers of intumescent material, isolation fault detection, two temp sensors per module, etc.