While this is substantiated in the typical case, where the presence of fuses for circuit protection is a sign of an electrical system that is generally obsolete and/or has a significant risk of overfusing and/or fuse bypassing, there are cases where circuit breakers are not readily applicable to the circuit protection need at hand. This is true where extensive DC systems are present, circuit protection devices of unusual ampacities are needed such as for a power meter potential tap or for overload protection of motors, or if power is stepped up to 480V onsite for a long feeder run to an outbuilding.
In these cases, modern fusible hardware, such as fuse holders/blocks and fusible safety switches, that has rejection features engineered into it to prevent bypassing or gross overfusing, represents an effective and NEC-compliant alternative to circuit breakers that either don't exist (there are no UL489 breakers with a fixed 100mA overcurrent trip, and probably never will be) or are cost prohibitive to install (such as large DC or 480V straight rated breakers). This hardware is made by reputable manufacturers and widely distributed, accepts UL-listed rejection-type ferrule/cartridge or blade fuses that can be obtained through most suppliers of electrical equipment, and is fully rated and listed for service in the applications in question.
How can someone who is planning an electrical installation where engineering constraints may put fuses back on the table as a circuit protection means avoid finding themselves in a situation where insurers are refusing insurance coverage over a safe and Code-legal installation? Is the aforementioned anecdote truly an overgeneralization of the situation?