If it came down to allowing someone from remote to lock the vehicle, preventing egress and disable the starter versus just making a claim to the insurance company, I'd rather forgo the remote locking and if the item is stolen, deal with the insurance company and see about a replacement vehicle, for a few reasons:
1: Usually a recovered vehicle is trashed big time, and you never know if sometime down the line you might have a dog search at a checkpoint (anyone travelling on I-10 knows about this) yield something the thieves put there in the way of illegal substances.
2: The vehicle can have a failure and lock someone in. At best, it means smashing a window to get out.
3: Most importantly, right now, it might just be a vehicle maker that can do this from remote... but it is only a matter of time before someone hacks that, and in a 104 degree day, someone decides to stall and double-lock all BMWs on the roads, forcing rescue teams to go vehicle by vehicle to get people out before they expire. Or, even more insidiously, during an evacuation, disable and lock all vehicles, ensuring nobody is able to exit a city before a hurricane strikes. The hacking team that manages to do this to OnStar will be forever immortalized.
And this already has happened on a smaller scale. Here in Austin a few years ago, a disgruntled employee logged into a used car dealership's system and disabled 100+ vehicles that were sold by that dealer, where they stalled in the road and started honking their horns. If a guy with a former employee username/PW can do that, imagine what a state sponsored group can do if/when they feel like that, especially with the mindset of most US companies being that security has no ROI.
tl;dr, keep the remote kill switches. It is only a matter of time before that stuff gets hacked, and perhaps used for ransom ("pay us 2 BTC, or else your car will be disabled and your engine's ECU fried in 12 hours.")