In general, indemnities wouldn't be geared around fixed settlements and would be accompanied by limitation of liability provisions. Indemnification of the distribution/resale channel is in many ways to the advantage of the OEM (original equipment manufacturer), because as an OEM you don't typically want any third party settling a case that could set a precedent against you for future awards. By having an indemnification standard in place, the OEM can control the legal process, which is probably more important than any other factor for them.
The kinds of cases that would rise to the level of any viable legal action would seem to need to be around faulty design, or some sort of neglect or malfeasance, where the OEM could possibly have substantial liability, and again, the indemnity (if this is what is happening in practice) would protect both the retail seller and the OEM.
As to whether an insurance company could subrogate the claim to a binding manufacturer, I can't see how unless they are also proving faulty design, neglect, or some other liability standard. My insurance company did not ask any questions about my injury last Spring. They would have had to have gathered a lot of information from me in an attempt to subrogate the claim to the binding manufacturer's insurance company, who a) is probably a foreign company, and b) would be insane to provide what amounts to U.S. injury claim coverage.
I don't have any firsthand knowledge about the binding industry, but the type of liability mitigation you describe doesn't make any sense to me. I think that it would be tremendously difficult to prove that the binding caused an injury in any situation, because all you have at the end of the incident is a released or un-released binding. Plus, I imagine most states with major ski tourism industries have pretty tight laws ascribing the risk of skiing to the skier. The "I got hurt using your product" claim will never get past the first read of the state statutes.