back to article Euro court slaps down insurers over gender risks

The European Court of Justice has ruled that insurers should not treat gender as a risk factor when assessing premiums, clearing the way for higher costs for women. And probably men. A Belgian consumer organisation had brought the case, which centred on exemptions from the EU's anti-discrimination directive that allowed …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Dazed and Confused

    discrimination

    Would the ECJ also like to ban men from dying earlier. It is clearly discriminator of nature to make Sheilas have to live longer and therefore suffer more of the ECJ's stupid decisions.

    For Insurers, perhaps they should be forces to publish their data on which they make discriminatory charges, but if the risks are different then surely the premiums need to match that.

  2. Tegne
    Big Brother

    There goes Sheila's Wheels S.P

    However I can't agree with this ruling even though as a male it's affected me adverseley over the past 20 years. Surely insurance is all about risk assessment and as gender is proven to be a significant factor in car incidents it's a valid factor. Just like engine size, location ang age. How long before they rule that age can't be used in insurance calculations as it's ageist.

    1. g e

      If insurance WERE about risk assessment

      Then your premium wouldn't go up cos someone in a different county was hit by an uninsured Polish driver. Would it?

      Insurance Co's do NOT have your best interests at heart. They have shareholders.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Insurance

      Insurance is also about grouping together risk, the more you break apart a group you get a less level playing field and some pay disproportionately more.

      Also, try this thought experiment: Asian teenaged males cause more accidents proportionately than any other group*. Should asian teenaged boys be charged more because of their racial background? Personally I find that this doesn't sit well with me, if I then extend it to male/female I can't justify feeling different about that.

      No claims bonuses seem to work very well as a reward for less risky behaviour as they have to be earned and apply to nothing other than your abillity to not cause an accident.

      *I just made that up for the purpouse of the thought experiment.

    3. Adrian Challinor

      No, Sheila's Wheels will grow

      They do not have to change theor prices because, if you are a man, they do not have a policy for you. It is not discrimination to say they will only insure female drivers. It is discrimination if they say they will insure men, but only for a stupidly large premium.

      1. Jack 12

        I disagree

        Saying that they will not insure men is far more discriminatory than saying they will insure them for a high premium. By not insuring men they are withholding a service from an entire group of people on the basis of gender, by insuring them for a high premium they are offering that service for the statistical price at which it is affordable to them.

      2. davtom

        Sheila's Wheels...

        do in fact insure men.

        I never held car insurance with them, but I did in fact have home insurance with them at one time, simply because they were the cheapest supplier.

        I felt a bit daft doing it, and I'm sure I would have felt even dafter if I had to claim... but I did it. Before I lose my manhood, I'd like to add that the quote was found by a comparison service.

        I believe it would be illegal for them to REFUSE to quote because you are male. Note that that's different from them applying a premium because you are male.

      3. jonathanb Silver badge

        No they won't

        Sheila's wheels do provide quotes for men, if you can cope with their lurid pink website.

        They quoted me £512.72. If I had a sex change operation then I would only pay £412.12.

        Banco Santander charge me £377.55 as a man, so I think I will pass on it.

  3. King Jack
    Thumb Up

    At last

    Women rightly had a case for being paid less for the same work as men. That has been corrected, but it has swung too far in the other direction. I never heard women complain that they were being given cheaper deals for being women. Let's hope they sort out sports next. ie. Wimbledon. Yes the pay is the same, but Women play less sets, so they earn more than the men.

    Equality should be equal.

    1. Sabine Miehlbradt
      Coat

      Inequality

      So far we haven't sued for shorter queues in front of the restrooms, either.

      1. The Cube
        Stop

        No but...

        In most cases the queue for the wimmins' restroom has more service agents (cubicles) and when the wimmins' queue gets too long it is rather too common for wimmin to decide that they also own all the cubicles in the mens' restrooms.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up

          Tell me about it ...

          A couple of years ago, I was pointing percy at the porcelain, just zipped up, and out of the cubicle came a middle aged lady ..

          "I don't queue" she said, before waltzing out.

          Now if a *man* had tried the same stunt in the ladies ?

          1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

            Re: Tell me about it ...

            A man wouldn't need to. When is there ever a queue for the gents?

            I've used foul, foetid men's bogs when I've been absolutely desperate, and I'll do it again if I have to. I've seen guys in the ladies now and then, but that generally seems to have been because they were, er, in a lady. Or wanting to avoid the nasty disgusting gents', which I can't really blame them for. Bit rude but not that big a deal, frankly. (NB on these occasions there have been other women present, and none of them have screamed or called the police.)

            But never mind, let's all find some example of behaviour which proves women are trying to take over the world and think men are no better than bedbugs!

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Women paid less for the same job has been corrected ?

      In what universe do you live, sir ?

      1. Goat Jam
        FAIL

        My Universe

        is the one where businesses are run purely to create the largest possible profits.

        If it were indeed possible to employ wimmin who "do the exact same work as men for less pay" then I have no doubt that some enterprising businessperson would have leapt on that opportunity, undercut everyone else until they all went bankrupt and the entire market was theirs and theirs alone! muwhahahaha!

        Either that or no men would ever have jobs and women would account for 100% of the workforce.

        Neither of these things have happened yet so I'm pretty comfortable in claiming that the whole "Women earn 30% less than men for the exact same work" is total bollocks.

        Whenever you see feminists making those claims, they are simply taking the cumulative pay of women across the board and dividing that by the number of working women across the board to get the average figure women earn. They do the same for men and them holler about the so called "pay disparity".

        What they don't take into account is that women tend to choose safer, cleaner jobs in airconditioned offices (such as jobsworth HR workers) or hairdressing or whatever while men OTOH, despite all the clamouring for equality over the years are still seen to be the primary breadwinners and are therefore forced into working jobs that are more dangerous, dirtier or require far longer hours (ie: executards) and consequently the cumulative pay for men tends to be higher.

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Matthew 25
    FAIL

    Why?

    It wasn't broken so why try to fix it. All this means is that consumers will lose out and insurance companies will make more money! Thank you once again Europe.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Europe?

      The judge is just applying rules our government signed up to. Perhaps they were too stupid to see the consequences, perhaps this is what they wanted, I don't know.

      Personally this all seems reasonable to me. Otherwise, what if it turned out that black people had more accidents, should they pay more, perhaps Asians less? Should the disabled pay more? Should the poor pay more if it turns out they are more of a risk? Are homosexuals safer drivers, perhaps they should pay less?

      To those who say the system ain't broke: How is it young men today pay ten times what I paid when I was a kid? There's no evidence costs have gone up by the same amount, nor that premiums for more experienced drivers have come down. To me the system is broken.

  6. Mark 7
    Black Helicopters

    December 21 2012 ?

    Total non-story. The world is due to end that day!

  7. envmod
    FAIL

    great

    sounds like whoever brought this to the attantion of the european court has royally fucked things up for everyone concered, nice one, good job.

  8. Steve Button Silver badge
    WTF?

    What about age?

    Shouldn't they be restricted from discrimating based on age as well?

    As a 40 year old male, I would not welcome that much... but my kids might. :)

    1. Thumbs

      ah but...

      You can always wait until you're a little bit older before buying a car... I can't wait until i turn into a woman...

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: ah but...

        Heh. I bet you can't, etc.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What, for that matter, about country of origin?

      Yeah - there are already stirrings in the industry because the EU legislation regarding age discrimination is due for implementation 'soon'.

      However - all this "You can't discriminate because I have attribute X" rather makes a nonsense of the idea of insurance based on risk.

      How will the insurance company determine if you're a risk if they're not allowed to use those measurable properties inherent in the statistical calculations on which insurance risk is based?

      Bit like saying "You can clean my windows but you can't use ladders" then complaining when you get charged extra for the gear the window cleaner needs to be 20' up in the air.

      This was a bloody stupid decision that will have bloody stupid consequences.

  9. jason 7
    FAIL

    So whats next?

    Cant use Age? Cant use job description?

    Etc. Etc.

    So in a few years time we'll all be paying the same £2000 a year for car insurance (young or old, male or female) to cover all bases and life insurance will be gone totally.

    Sometimes things we feel aren't fair are there for a good reason. Life's not fair, deal with it.

    If you cant use risk factors to assess risk then they will have to stop us all doing anything.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Re: So whats next?

      I also look forward to the cries of outrage when insurance age discrimination is removed and we all pay the same amount.

      I also look forward to all the other biases that insurance companies use to rate the risk of people being removed so that we are all treated "fairly".

      Affordable insurance isn't important is it?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Eh?

      What about using the no claims bonus to reward someone who is more safe.

    3. Jon 52

      national insurance

      So should national insurance start to charge more for smokers, or fat people in the NHS

      Or perhaps people from Hull should pay more as they are more likily to be unemployed?

      1. David Beck

        More?

        Why would smokers pay more? They will die sooner than non-smokers, so I'm told, so their costs will be less. Or do you think the non-smokers will never cost to maintain in old age, never go to hospital during their longer old age and never collect pension?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    omfg

    we are doomed, that is all.

  11. The Indomitable Gall

    Boy racers...

    Well, if they're not allowed to discriminate in terms of gender, expect insurance forms to find other ways to identify them. Bodykits and spoilers will have to be used to consider the cost of insurance. Heck, even things that don't effect the mechanical efficiency of the car (eg cold cathode tubes, overpowered speakers, chromaflare paint and decals) will be fair game in assessing a driver as high risk.

    1. The First Dave
      Boffin

      @The Indomitable Gall

      All of those things would tend to be regarded as 'modifications', which must be declared to the Insurer, precisely so that it can be used to re-evaluate costs.

      1. The Indomitable Gall

        Well there you go then.

        If the insurance companies can identify boy racers from the insurance manifest, there's no reason to penalise a 20-year-old bank clerk who drives a Volvo as a potential high-risk boy racer, is there?

    2. JohnG

      ....other ways to identify them

      "Will the insured be using Bulgarian Airbags?"

    3. Code Monkey

      They are already

      "Is your car modified in any way (including wheels)?"

      My 2p: I don't think I've ever used "it's political correctness gone mad" without taking the piss before. Gender's a genuine indicator of risk and this change will be another excuse for the insurance cartel to dick us all.

    4. Oz
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Boy racers

      Bodykits, spoilers, speakers, paint and decals are already used to assess risk. It's because of the perceived increased theft/vandalism likelihood, plus the fact that the industry assumes those who have these kinds of modifications are more likely to "drive it like they stole it".

      1. IsJustabloke
        Stop

        I refuse to enoble a simple forum post!

        interestingly its my experience that those who make the mad modifications to their cars are in fact very careful when they drive their pride and joy.

        Its the ones that obvioulsy don't give a shit about their cars that drive it like they stole it.

    5. PsychicMonkey
      Stop

      they already use that...

      they are called modifications.

      A certain nautical insurance company tried to claim that my factory fitted spoiler was a modification cause it wasn't part of the base spec. I pointed out my car wasn't base spec and they backed down, still didn;t get my money though!

  12. John Hawkins

    Ageism next?

    I guess the next step is to apply the same principle to ageism in insurance. While I am getting longish in the tooth myself and will lose out on car insurance, the thought of having boy racers contributing to my health insurance has its attractions.

  13. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Women's footwear

      Yeah, but there is a reason. Take these 2 examples:

      Man goes into shop. Looks at first pair of shoes. Do they look like shoes? Do they fit? Sale!

      Woman goes into shop. Looks at 100th pair. Are the heals the same size as all my others? Is the colour more than 2 shades different from a dress I have? Have I got a matching handbag?.....Size doesn't even necessarily come into it (Seen the IT Crowd episode?)

      Men will buy anything, so it's hard to charge them too much, Women on the other hand MUST have the red one with the long heal; charge as much as you want! They'll only be worn twice, don't even have to make them properly!

      Oh have I discriminated there? Will the ECJ come for me?

  14. sam 23
    WTF?

    Stupid!

    This is madness.

    I presume the next thing will be that you cannot discriminate based on age too...?

    So some boy racer buys an Impreza but can't be charged more than someone who has driven for 20 years or it is "discrimination"??

    Therefore everyone's premium goes up to cover it.

    Nice one.

    1. DPWDC
      Thumb Down

      No...

      "So some boy racer buys an Impreza but can't be charged more than someone who has driven for 20 years or it is "discrimination"??"

      No, thats not the issue.

      50 year old that passed her test a year ago gets lower premiums than the 22 year old male thats been driving for 4 years with no claims. That is the problem

      Experience is still a valid consideration.

  15. david 63

    Surely...

    ...if they can show that it is based on risk they can tell the courts to F off?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    How far are they going to go?

    Will separate men's and women's toilettes be next on the chopping block?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Perhaps all the way...

      ... a similar ruling forced Anne Summers to take on men to work on it's shop floors. The Anne Summers near us now has a 19 yo guy working for it. He says it's his dream job.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The ECJ must have thought this through...

    so they'll have an answer for all those men who will see their Annuities plummet... and women who will see their insurance rise..

    I await with baited breath for the tablets to fall!

  18. Whitter
    IT Angle

    Age discrimination to demographic discriminators

    Without doubt they'll use time-since-got-licence as a surrogate for age if it follows suit (as it inevitability will). Perhaps they'll do something like a weight or height threshold using general demographics as a surrogate for gender, pretending high risk of knee or whiplash injury.

    Some folks will get suffed of course, some might even benefit though I doubt it, but the insurance market is mostly a con anyway, so no surprise there.

  19. Eddie Edwards
    Thumb Up

    Good

    The principle against prejudice is that it's wrong to take a statistic about a group and assume that tells you a fact about the individual who happens to be a member of that group.

    The very notion of insurance flies in the face of this so there's a delicate balance of what is and is not acceptable.

    However, Shiela's Wheels are feeding on popular culture's acceptance of sexism (as long as it's against men). That always jarred with me somewhat.

    This ruling is also consistent with the broader idea that genetic markers should not be used to affect insurance premiums.

    Some commentators have pointed out that insurers are, equally, ageist. But age is not just a number; it represents how much experience you have. It isn't fair to say a 60-year-old should have a lower premium than a 20-year-old *assuming* they've both been driving for 40 years. But that's not a valid assumption. Conversely, a 60-year-old who only learned to drive last week should probably have the same premium as a 20-year-old who did the same.

    1. Originone

      age and experiance.

      Insurers for vehicle insurance at least treat age and how long youve held a drivers license (experience) seperately already.

      "But age is not just a number; it represents how much experience you have."

      "Conversely, a 60-year-old who only learned to drive last week should probably have the same premium as a 20-year-old who did the same"

      you appear to contradict yourself saying age represents experience, and then saying age may not reflect any experience.

      An insurer will look at the age of a driver and decide how likely they are to engage in risky behaviour, in this case someone who is 60 is much less likely to take risks than a 20 year old. They will then look at experience and factor that in to premium calculations as a seperate variable to age. In this respect they are and should be looking at age and discriminating on that basis. It is fact that drivers of a certain age are less likely to be involved in accidents than drivers from another age demographic all other things being equal.

      Insurers can and should disciminate by varying premiums on this basis.

  20. The Fuzzy Wotnot
    Happy

    Supposedly...

    I believe the reason is that generally speaking the idea that women have less accidents than men is a fallacy, due to the general evidence that women drive less than gents, thus you cannot compare like-for-like.

    I'm not bothered either way, just pointing something out I read somewhere else.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Age

    To all those complaining that age will be next - GOOD! I see no reason why a 29 year old who has been driving for 12 years with no claims should pay more than a 45 year old that passed their test last week!

    Insurance should be based on how long you've been driving and claims made in that time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      as a 45 year old who passed my test 6 months ago I agree

      although anything that gets my insurance down is welcome as far as I'm concerned

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: I see no reason why

      You haven't noticed that alcohol and testosterone fuelled young males generally behave in a less responsible and considerate way than those twice their age? Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that "maturity" is anything more than being too knackered to have fun ...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re: re: I see no reson why

        Who do you think gets stopped more for drink driving? Office junior thats just passed his test - or his M.D. whos been working stupid hours and fancied a quick glass or two before she heads home?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 1650

        Of the people I know who drink drive, they are all, with one exception, in their 50s. They don't get slaughtered, but are all happy to have "a couple of beers" and are still "fine to drive". Except beer tends to be a lot stronger than you think.

        Also, it's not an if age discrimination will follow, rather when. The EU is committed to ending discrimination and I believe that age is up next. Having said that, as many others have pointed out - it's experience that counts, not age, and this is reflected at lest in part in todays premiums.

  22. Jonathan Carlaw
    FAIL

    Another victory against common sense

    Remember, you can't let let a little thing like facts get in the way of being PC...

    Insurance companies charge different premiums for motor insurance etc. by analysing statistics of accidents and claims, and matching the driver profile to the relative risk associated with that profile.

    Since the stats show women have a lower rate of claims and/or lower cost of claims, their premiums are lower - it's not discrimination!

    1. King Jack

      Wrong

      And if you do a study based on skin colour, and find that white males make greater claims. Would that not be racist? Basing anything on gender to favour or punish a person IS sexist by its very nature. Thanks god we have laws that make that practice illegal.

      Shella's wheels are a sexist bunch, good riddance to them for openly discriminating against men.

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Wrong

        What is wrong with you lot today?

      2. Alfred

        What about every other car insurance company?

        They ALL charge men more, you silly muppet.

  23. Sam Liddicott

    Good side effects

    I was afraid that the increasing ability of insurance companies to calculate personal risk would lead to the situation where those who would be offered policies would decline - the fact of the insurers confidence shows they don't need it; and those who would be refused policies would despair.

    This sets a precedent of the kinds of things that may not be considered when computing risk.

    I will watch with interest as things are added to the list.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    Crazy

    Of course once course this may follow is that some people will simply be unable to get ANY insurance any any price - the insurance companies will see a risk but will be unable to mitigate it by charging more. Their only option will be to refuse to quote.

    The same will go for health insurance (probably for women), and lots of other insurance too.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Serious problem...

      This is a serious problem - Moneybox on radio 4 (I don't listen to it, honest) had an interview with a 17 year old who had just passed his test and got a £500 fiesta 1.2, or something similarly small, the best insurance he could get was £3500. On top of this, the excess for younger drivers tends to be through the roof.

  25. Danny 14
    Stop

    dammit

    so adding my wife to my premium as a named driver wont lower it anymore :(

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    About Time

    Discrimination through gender and age is simply unfair and I'm glad they're putting a stop to it.

    My sister passed her test in her 30s and enjoys much lower premiums than I did at 21 despite the fact she has had more accidents than I have.

    Discriminating based on a combination of driving experience, accident history and car type

    is a much fairer way of lowering premiums for those who deserve them rather than tarring 50% of the driving population with the same brush.

  27. Jon Press

    So any male due to retire shortly...

    ... gets hit with a serious cut in his planned retirement income with less than two years in which to attempt to increase their pension fund to compensate.

  28. sam 23

    @DPWDC

    Fair enough, experience should count more in some instances but at the end of the day, more 17 - 25 year olds die in accidents caused by wreckless driving than 40 year olds.

    I appreciate there are less 40 year olds that have between 0 and 8 years experience but I bet the % tells the same story.

    I don't want to pay more for the rest of my life to cover idiots.

    I'm 29 by the way.

  29. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. JimC
      FAIL

      err but...

      They already load the premium heavily for modifications like that.

  30. The Original Ash
    Troll

    Going for the jugular...

    Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, women have fought for equal rights to men.

    IT'S ABOUT TIME THEY GOT SOME!

    [Intentional troll is intentional. Tongue firmly in cheek, Ms Bee.]

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Going for the jugular...

      That's a pretty lame troll even by Reg standards, dear.

  31. Mark .

    Statistical discrimination is still discrimination

    "Surely insurance is all about risk assessment and as gender is proven to be a significant factor in car incidents it's a valid factor."

    Well this is a crux of the argument - should the right of insurance companies to make a profit, trump laws on discrimination? The court decided no. Traditionally insurance companies have had far greater leeway to statistically discriminate than say, employers. But it's not clear that it should be that way.

    There is also some argument to say that statistical discrimination should be okay whilst predujical discrimination (where there is no basis for the generalisations) isn't. But there are still examples of statistical discrimination that we would still consider unfair (not allowing women in the army; or an employer saying that women are statistically more likely to get pregnant).

    Note, if *you* are a poorer driver, it's fair game to charge you more. The problem here is that people were being judged not on their driving ability, but the average driving ability of the gender that they were lumped in with. Also AFAIK, the laws only cover certain classes (gender, race, etc), so it's not like this will ruling will ban all forms of discrimination.

    For anyone complaining about paying for other people - that's the whole *point* of insurance. You pay money, to cover other people's accidents. If you're a good driver, you'll most likely lose out. If you're a bad driver, or unlucky, you'll gain from it. But it seems an odd thing to complain about. Look at it this way - if you lose out from insurance, it means you've been lucky to have had no or fewer crashes. (If I never have to claim on my home insurance, or my health insurance, I'll be glad!)

    Even if it did end up with everyone paying the same (although presumably things like cost of your car/home/etc would always still have an effect), would that be so bad? That was the whole point of insurance. When insurers use all these endless risk factors, remember, they're not doing it for your benefit - they're doing it so they can increase their profits.

    "What's next, banning insurance "discrimination" against boy racers with idiotic car modifications and 9 points on their licences?"

    Er, no, because that's not discrimination. There the judgement is based on individual merit. Choosing to have car modifications also is unlikely to ever be a protected class.

  32. Martin 63

    Time driving does count

    As someone who is 44 and recently got round to passing my car test, I can say time driving, or experience counts in your premium. I think the swingometer went up to 6 years experience before no penalty. To me this makes sense, as does age. The older we get, the less invincible we feel we are.

    On men vs women insurance, I expect overall Ill loose out. Health/Life will go up for me, down for my better half and the net result will be a slight increase. Car insurance will go down, and up for her, again, net change will be slightly north of the same.

    All we will be doing is giving another set of paper shufflers an excuse for their job

  33. The Jase
    Flame

    Work

    Women are less risk when driving, let them pay less.

    Women are more risk getting pregnant and taking leave from work, let them get paid less.

    Not so nice when put in those terms is it?

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Work

      Whooo yeah that showed us I never thought of it like that before.

      What I have thought of, however, many times, is what the hell I did to deserve all of you.

      1. The Jase

        Actually

        You don't like equality Sarah? Personally I think its a good thing. All we need now is for equal pay to be implimented properly and to have paternity leave equal to maternity leave. The father needs to do his bit too you know, none of the breadwinner nonsense,

        1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Actually

          Don't patronise me.

          1. The Jase

            but

            But its so much fun trolling you!

            1. The Jase

              and

              and your misandry is legendary.

              1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

                Re: and

                I don't hate men, you fucking ruminant. I just hate idiots, including idiots who hate women. It's not quite the same thing.

                Fucking idiot.

  34. Richard Gadsden 1
    Boffin

    Where do people get the idea from that this is the court being PC?

    Seriously, the European Parliament - which <b>you</b> voted for, or else you didn't vote, which means it's even more your fault - passed the directive. The European Council of Ministers, one of whom is <b>your</b> representative passed it too.

    They could go back tomorrow and amend the Directive and the ECJ would have to enforce the amended version. So why haven't you gone to writetothem and written to your elected representatives already?

  35. Dave 15

    Interesting - the ECJ is a law making body?

    I always thought courts were institutions which decided if someone had broken a law.

    Clearly the ECJ now thinks it is an appropriate institution to MAKE laws - infact an institution with unelected members able to make laws above and beyond those of any elected chamber.

    The EU's elected part had clearly decided that exceptions to the gender rules were made to last indefinately. The ECJ has now decided it has the power to overturn that democratic institution and our own parliament in order to make a new law setting an end date.

    TIme I think to say NO to them.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Insurance Companies...

    ...are clever. They can ask "how many handbags do you own" and use this as a rating factor. Or how many pairs of tights do you own. Not discriminatory.

  37. Suboptimal Planet

    There's nothing wrong with discrimination

    So what if insurance companies discriminate?

    So what if they discriminate inappropriately?

    An insurance company that discriminates on the best possible criteria might do a better job of setting premiums to match risk, but there are costs to a personalised analysis, as well as benefits. Discriminating based on age or sex is crude, but it's also cheap.

    Insurance companies should be free to discriminate on race or religion too, or any other criteria they like. They don't need to be told to focus on categories that matter; it's already in their interests to do so. And if you don't like their categorisation, you are free to take your business elsewhere (or set up your own insurance company).

    The trouble, of course, is that we're all forced to buy car insurance, and heavy regulation favours established players.

    This is a classic case of government intervention leading to further government intervention.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    equality

    Here in the states for auto insurance there is no difference for for men and women drivers, They found out that women have more accidents then men. Minor accidents . Men tend to total cars.

    As for health insurance women pay less even though they go to the Dr more. The reason is men wait till it's bad to go to the Dr. Women are much more likely to catch stuff early saving the company money in the long run.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Health insurance

      Health insurance is a good point - in the UK, the rate at which you pay your medical insurance (National Insurance) is exactly the same rate for men and women over 16.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Insurance is based on discrimination though!

    Sex discrimination is just one form of discrimination.

    You could now argue exactly the same for age, with the result being that a 17yr old has premiums on a par with a 35yr old.

    Insurance is fundamentally based on discrimination at the end of the day! Unless every single person gets exactly the same quote, you are being discriminated by at least one, usually a long list of properties - so why is gender any different?

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Contains 2nd-hand anecdote, therefore not evidence. Read at your own risk.

    An uncle of mine who was a doctor in Canada told me that 'Native Canadians' had a worse accident record than drivers of European descent, and the theory was that the structure of the eye orbits gave them slightly less peripheral vision. So it's possible that a company could statistically argue for higher premiums for a racial group. They wouldn't be allowed to though, so instead they average the premiums out. They can do the same here.

    I don't normally bother with spelling criticism, but had to note how @DPWDC managed to reverse his/her meaning by using 'wreckless' instead of 'reckless'. I like the word though!

  41. SleepyJohn
    Big Brother

    The role of the ECJ is not to interpret the law

    It may be of interest to note that the ECJ was quite specifically instructed by the Maastricht Treaty to return verdicts that would "further European integration". No mention, as I recall, of dispensing justice or interpreting the Law.

    Insurance companies calculate premiums based on the average cost of claims. To improve accuracy they put customers into groups based on average claims history - not perfect, but with the aid of NCD it rumbles along. If they grouped people for political or ethnic reasons rather than economic statistics (Group A average claim is 3x that of Group B) they would go bust in a week.

    All this ruling does, at the EU's usual obscene cost to taxpayers, is make groups larger (on the basis of sex rather than claims history), and therefore even less representative of economic reality than before. I fail to see how this can in any way improve the lot of careful drivers or reduce premiums overall.

    We might usefully ponder on the legitimacy of a 'court' that has been given such a blatant political remit; a 'court' that not long ago decreed that any criticism of the EU or its bosses was on a par with blasphemy. Big red animals that bounce about Australia would be quite at home here, I think.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too right

    In the 17 years I've been driving I've never caused an accident. The one accident I was involved in was when a 21 year old woman drove into the side of my car - yet when I was 21, I would have been paying a hell of a lot more than see was.

    I'm hoping this new ruling will result in a drop in my insurance, although it'll probably go up since I have my wife on my policy :-(

  43. Nick Pettefar

    Ha-ah!

    I turned into a woman... and now I have to pay more for my insurance! (Joke alert.)

    As an older guy I hope they remove the age-related premiums, then it will be cheaper to insure my sons.

This topic is closed for new posts.