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.

Page:

  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.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.