Insurance - discriminating against single people.

P.C.

My car insurance is up for renewal in a few weeks, so today I phoned a few insurance companies to get prices.

All was going well - they asked the usual questions, and I gave the information, until...

I was asked if I wanted to add my partner to the policy.
I said - No thank you, I am single.

The person on the other end of the phone line told me that it would be cheaper if I added my partner to the policy, so I asked for them to give me a quote for me alone, and a quote with my 'partner' added (I gave them the details of a friend of mine).

Price for me alone - +/- €400
Me and 'Partner' - +/- €300 :eek:

I did ask if it would make any difference if my 'partner' is male or female, and was told that is would not - so they are not discriminating against homosexual or hetrosexul couples.

After I got a bit upset, the person on the other end of the phone line said to me - 'Don't take it personally'.

How am I not supposed to take it personally! :mad:

You are telling me that because I am single I am being discriminated against, and then expect me NOT to take it personally.

I do not understand this, and I do not understand why I am being discriminated against because I do not have a 'partner'.

iptba

P.C. wrote: »

My car insurance is up for renewal in a few weeks, so today I phoned a few insurance companies to get prices.

All was going well - they asked the usual questions, and I gave the information, until...

I was asked if I wanted to add my partner to the policy.
I said - No thank you, I am single.

The person on the other end of the phone line told me that it would be cheaper if I added my partner to the policy, so I asked for them to give me a quote for me alone, and a quote with my 'partner' added (I gave them the details of a friend of mine).

Price for me alone - +/- €400
Me and 'Partner' - +/- €300 :eek:

I did ask if it would make any difference if my 'partner' is male or female, and was told that is would not - so they are not discriminating against homosexual or hetrosexul couples.

After I got a bit upset, the person on the other end of the phone line said to me - 'Don't take it personally'.

How am I not supposed to take it personally! :mad:

You are telling me that because I am single I am being discriminated against, and then expect me NOT to take it personally.

I do not understand this, and I do not understand why I am being discriminated against because I do not have a 'partner'.

Anyone know the background? Is it simply that some figures show people who have partners are, "on average", lower risk or is there something else involved?

Worth highlighting anyway.

Maybe a site could be set up for people to meet in such situations.
Not exactly the same thing but my brother has a gay male friend who works for an airline. They were making a long trip so my brother got registered as his partner to save money.

Otis Driftwood

Are you sure they said partner?In some instances having an additional driver on the policy does bring down the premium,in other cases it doesnt.Sure why dont you name a parent/sibling on the policy if it means its cheaper?

neilthefunkeone

iptba wrote: »

Anyone know the background? Is it simply that some figures show people who have partners are, "on average", lower risk or is there something else involved?

Yeah cos they are at home having sex with their partner.......not trawling mc donalds drive thru's at 3am!!!

But seriously.. i put my GF on my policy, said she was living with me as my partner.. took a few quid off!!!!

Blitzkrieger

A guy at work got a bigger discount for getting married than for having no penalty points.

Sadly it's only one of the ways we're discrimitated against by the insurance companies. But it's okay, because we're young males - it's not like we have laws about equalities.

Insurance is supposed to be about shared risk. If we're going to have to discriminate, why can't I have cheaper health insuance that the hypocondriac slacker who goes to the doctor every time she has a sniffle and is firing babies out to beat the band? Other than to get vaccinations I haven't been to the doctor in 27 years.

PeakOutput

i would imagine it has nothing to do with risk and everything with trying to get more business, you tell your partner what a great deal you got by putting them on and maybe they will move insurance too them aswell

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

But it's okay, because we're young males

Other than to get vaccinations I haven't been to the doctor in 27 years.

the insurance companies dont consider you a young male so dont worry about it

iptba

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Insurance is supposed to be about shared risk. If we're going to have to discriminate, why can't I have cheaper health insuance that the hypocondriac slacker who goes to the doctor every time she has a sniffle and is firing babies out to beat the band? Other than to get vaccinations I haven't been to the doctor in 27 years.

One way they could have community rating in health insurance that might be fairer to men would be to have one price for men and one price for women.

source

Just checked with my insurance company, apparently if i add my girlfriend on my insurance i'll save €100 on my premium.:eek::eek:

I'll be doing that when she comes home.

Blitzkrieger

PeakOutput wrote: »

the insurance companies dont consider you a young male so dont worry about it

Lol - actually they do. Turning 30 soon but apparantly "32 is the new 30" as far as insurance companies are concerned. c*nts

iptba wrote: »

One way they could have community rating in health insurance that might be fairer to men would be to have one price for men and one price for women.

Not trying to take the piss but I've been waiting to use this for so long :

sam34

i dont think its really discrimination per se, its a sales technique - buy more of a product and you get it cheaper per unit

look at it in terms of groceries - if i buy one packet of ham it'll cost €2, but i could get 2 packets for €3.50 rather than €4... is that discrimination against me cause i dont have a family to warrant buying two packets?

sam34

edit just re-read op, realised cost of two is less than cost of one alone... not sure where that leaves my ham analogy!

iptba

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Not trying to take the piss but I've been waiting to use this for so long

Maybe it is obvious, but I haven't heard it mentioned much. Younger men would be subsidising older men. Maybe you knew what I was talking about but some people might be confused.

Blitzkrieger

iptba wrote: »

Maybe you knew what I was talking about but some people might be confused.

I genuinely wasn't trying to take the piss. There's no harm in saying it expressly. An even fairer way might be since young men hardly ever go to the doctor maybe we should pay fook all in health insurance. Let the *people who are more likely to claim pay the higher premiums.

sam34 wrote: »

i dont think its really discrimination per se, its a sales technique - buy more of a product and you get it cheaper per unit

AFAIK it is due to accident statistics. More young single men die on the roads because there often tends to be four or five of them in a car. There's also a perception that they'll be showing off for their mates. A married man is considered less of a risk.




*Women actually account for more car insurance claims than men.

P.C.

nedtheshed wrote: »

Are you sure they said partner?In some instances having an additional driver on the policy does bring down the premium,in other cases it doesnt.Sure why dont you name a parent/sibling on the policy if it means its cheaper?

Yes, they said partner - and this partner must have:
- their own vehicle (with a similar size engine to yours) in their own name
- their own insurance on their vehicle (it does not matter who this insurance is with).

I intend to write to them, asking them to define 'partner'.


Oh, and I don't have any parents or siblings living in Ireland, so that counts that option out.

viclemronny

It's not personal. It must just be the case that, on average, people who are in a relationship are less likely to be in a car accident. This may be due to any number of reasons.

I am supposing this because this is how insurance profiling works. People who are in a greater risk category pay higher premiums. This does not say that all young male drivers, or in your case OP, single drivers, are dangerous/more dangerous. It means that on average they are.

Men are on average taller than women but I have female friend who is taller than one of my male friends.


Some would ask why not just have everyone pay the same premium for the same type of insurance(broadly broken down to 3rd party, 3rd party fire and theft and fully comp). The reason they don't is a process called adverse selection.

If you consider the simpler situation where insurance wasn't mandatory and there was just 2 choices, fully comp and none at all you can see this working.

Everyone is charged the same premium. But the safest people are being charged a higher premium than is actuarially fair. Therefore they stop insuring. Due to the safest people leaving, the average driver is now more dangerous, so the premia increase. Then the next set of safest drivers leave.

This continues until there are just very unsafe drivers with very high premia left.

iptba

P.C. wrote: »

Yes, they said partner - and this partner must have:
- their own vehicle (with a similar size engine to yours) in their own name
- their own insurance on their vehicle (it does not matter who this insurance is with).

Ok, I'm getting it now. I imagine in such a circumstance, less distance will be travelled in either car, on average.

P.C.

viclemronny wrote: »

It's not personal. It must just be the case that, on average, people who are in a relationship are less likely to be in a car accident. This may be due to any number of reasons.

I am supposing this because this is how insurance profiling works. People who are in a greater risk category pay higher premiums. This does not say that all young male drivers, or in your case OP, single drivers, are dangerous/more dangerous. It means that on average they are.

Men are on average taller than women but I have female friend who is taller than one of my male friends.


Some would ask why not just have everyone pay the same premium for the same type of insurance(broadly broken down to 3rd party, 3rd party fire and theft and fully comp). The reason they don't is a process called adverse selection.

If you consider the simpler situation where insurance wasn't mandatory and there was just 2 choices, fully comp and none at all you can see this working.

Everyone is charged the same premium. But the safest people are being charged a higher premium than is actuarially fair. Therefore they stop insuring. Due to the safest people leaving, the average driver is now more dangerous, so the premia increase. Then the next set of safest drivers leave.

This continues until there are just very unsafe drivers with very high premia left.

While I kind-of understand the reasoning that you are trying to use, I need to point out that this is not a 'family' policy.

It is a simple thing that if I add a 'partner' to my policy, it becomes cheaper, and this 'partner' must have their own car with their own insurance.

And why are people in a relationship less likely to have an accident?
Is there any recent proof of this?
Can anyone show me the studies done to prove this?

I lived in a country where insurance was NOT mandatory, and you took out insurance
- it was very reasonably priced
- you did not take it out for if you had an accident, you took it out because of all the uninsured people on the roads

So, in the end, more people had insurance than didn't.

P.C.

iptba wrote: »

Ok, I'm getting it now. I imagine in such a circumstance, less distance will be travelled in either car, on average.

No.

She/he drives their car - I drive mine. No less distance travelled in either car.

I tried that - I have a motorbike (seperate insurance), which I use more than my car, so only do +/- 5000 kms a year in the car, but they would not lower the price for that.

iptba

P.C. wrote: »

No.

She/he drives their car - I drive mine. No less distance travelled in either car.

But some of the time a couple will do a trip in one car. And you won’t both go out to do the weekly shopping (say). I don’t know the reason but it seems like one factor that could be at play.

P.C. wrote: »

I tried that - I have a motorbike (seperate insurance), which I use more than my car, so only do +/- 5000 kms a year in the car, but they would not lower the price for that.

But insurance packages can be rather blunt.

Stheno

P.C. wrote: »

I tried that - I have a motorbike (seperate insurance), which I use more than my car, so only do +/- 5000 kms a year in the car, but they would not lower the price for that.

Actually that whole policy drives me mildly insane, I drive 30,000 km per year plus but that's not taken into account if I have years of not claiming in terms of accomodating the fact that I have driven say 6 times as much as someone like yourself in a year multipled by a number of years, but rather my insurance is loaded as my mileage is high.

Now I get that given the high mileage statistically I'm more likely to have an accident, but the fact I've not had to claim with high mileage is not equally reflected.

Lynnsie

It's not just young males - I was renewing my policy recently and my ex-boyfriend had been a named driver. I rang and said I got the renewal notice but I needed him to be removed. The response I got was "You'd be better off leaving him on, it would be cheaper, we'll be increasing your premium if he comes off".

I said that wasn't really an option as we were no longer together and she said "all you need is a copy of his licence"! So my premium was increased which is quite frustrating as I've no claims and no penalty points. And I agree, it's very hard not to take it personally!

the watchman

Re OP. The longer I live the more stuff amazes me. Two people on a policy = twice the risk...should be more expensive. The worlds gone fe**ing mad.
Hate insurance companies.
Heres a warning. Don't get caught 'being under insured', for anything.
I took out a travel insurance for lost property to the value of €1000. Flew to NY, airline lost bags and were never found. Filled in report and listed what I had lost and the value of each item - because that's what the claim form asked me:cool:. Now all was set,:) paperwork done. The total loss of belongings came to around €1800. So, no problem, I was at least safe in the knowledge that I would recieve my check for €1000 because that what I paid for. Not so!:(. I was told I was entitled to and get this, 'nothing'. ' because I was "Underinsured". What bloody world are we living in GGrRrrrrrr.
After 5 months and me saying that I would go to court I got a cheque for €500 ex gratia. Insurance companies sometimes 'Stink'.
Imagin if your house is underinsured and it burns down...shudder to think.
Now, sleep on that folks!!!

And on a lighter not, remember...Crystal Swing 'Rock!!:D
Have a nice day.

PeakOutput

the watchman wrote: »

Re OP. The longer I live the more stuff amazes me. Two people on a policy = twice the risk...should be more expensive.

well thats not true at all

while im sure this isnt the reason for the op's quotes think of it this way

you have one car and one male driver, this 'high risk' driver is the only one driving the car and every time the car is driven it will be him

on the other hand you have one car and onemale driver and one female driver, it is reasonable to assume that the female 'low risk' driver will be driving at least some of the time and that will reduce the time the high risk driver is driving and therefore reduce the risk overall

but this isnt the reason for the quotes the reason is to get more business as i already said

Heres a warning. Don't get caught 'being under insured', for anything.
I took out a travel insurance for lost property to the value of €1000. Flew to NY, airline lost bags and were never found. Filled in report and listed what I had lost and the value of each item - because that's what the claim form asked me:cool:. Now all was set,:) paperwork done. The total loss of belongings came to around €1800. So, no problem, I was at least safe in the knowledge that I would recieve my check for €1000 because that what I paid for. Not so!:(. I was told I was entitled to and get this, 'nothing'. ' because I was "Underinsured". What bloody world are we living in GGrRrrrrrr.
After 5 months and me saying that I would go to court I got a cheque for €500 ex gratia. Insurance companies sometimes 'Stink'.

that sucks alright but assuming there is nothing in the t+c's to say this specificially you could have gone to court and won easily

Image if your house is underinsured and it burns down...shudder to think.
Now, sleep on that folks!!!

it happens all the time and the insurance companies pay out all the time

Otis Driftwood

the watchman wrote: »

Re OP. The longer I live the more stuff amazes me. Two people on a policy = twice the risk...should be more expensive. The worlds gone fe**ing mad.
Hate insurance companies.
Heres a warning. Don't get caught 'being under insured', for anything.
I took out a travel insurance for lost property to the value of €1000. Flew to NY, airline lost bags and were never found. Filled in report and listed what I had lost and the value of each item - because that's what the claim form asked me:cool:. Now all was set,:) paperwork done. The total loss of belongings came to around €1800. So, no problem, I was at least safe in the knowledge that I would recieve my check for €1000 because that what I paid for. Not so!:(. I was told I was entitled to and get this, 'nothing'. ' because I was "Underinsured". What bloody world are we living in GGrRrrrrrr.
After 5 months and me saying that I would go to court I got a cheque for €500 ex gratia. Insurance companies sometimes 'Stink'.
Imagin if your house is underinsured and it burns down...shudder to think.
Now, sleep on that folks!!!

And on a lighter not, remember...Crystal Swing 'Rock!!:D
Have a nice day.

Its the law of average clause and every insurance company has it.

the watchman

nedtheshed wrote: »

Its the law of average clause and every insurance company has it.

Whats the 'law of average clause' ned?

Otis Driftwood

Simplest way to explain would be as follows

Your house would cost 250,000 to rebuild it

You insure it for 200,000

You would get 200,000 but have to make up the shortfall out of your own pocket.

the watchman

nedtheshed wrote: »

Simplest way to explain would be as follows

Your house would cost 250,000 to rebuild it

You insure it for 200,000

House burns to the ground

You wont get 200,000

250,000 is 100%

therefore

200,000 is 80%

So you get 80% of 200,000 - 160,000.

In your situation it appears the same rule was applied

Thank you for explaining that Ned. If that is really how it works then it's even worse than I thought, grossly unfair. Almost criminal in my mind.
I still maintain that if I pay for €200,000 of cover I should still get €200,000 back because thats what I paid for even if my house is worth a million.
To me it's just like walking into a butchers shop and seeing beef marked at €5 per kilo and asking for a kilo handing over €5 and the butcher giving you 3/4 of a kilo.
I doubt I will ever be persuaded that the way it all operates is fair with these percentages. I just want what I pay for. If the policies said for a 'fixed fee' you are purchasing an agreed percentage of the value of the house as it stands when a claim is made would have no objection to that however I don't think it states that. Unfortunatley I do not have a house insurance policy to read at the present time.

Thank you for your time Ned. Always interesting.

Otis Driftwood

Just re-reading my last post there and I was incorrect in what I originally said.Based on the average clause you should have gotten €1000 worth of replacement items however Im not familiar with travel insurance so couldnt say for sure.

Anyway,the moral of the story is for any insurance policy - read the fine print!

If it sounds too good to be true,it probably is.

the watchman

the watchman wrote: »

Re OP. The longer I live the more stuff amazes me. Two people on a policy = twice the risk...should be more expensive.

It sounds like risk pooling though

Nermal

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Insurance is supposed to be about shared risk. If we're going to have to discriminate, why can't I have cheaper health insuance that the hypocondriac slacker who goes to the doctor every time she has a sniffle and is firing babies out to beat the band? Other than to get vaccinations I haven't been to the doctor in 27 years.

The business of insurance is the business of discrimination. Health is an anomaly in this country because the aged set the rules, and it's the one instance where they would be forced to pay higher prices without the distortion of community rating.

Nermal

the watchman wrote: »

I doubt I will ever be persuaded that the way it all operates is fair with these percentages. I just want what I pay for. If the policies said for a 'fixed fee' you are purchasing an agreed percentage of the value of the house as it stands when a claim is made would have no objection to that however I don't think it states that. Unfortunatley I do not have a house insurance policy to read at the present time.

Think of it this way, if you only insure your house for half its value, and half of it burns to the ground, you might say that it was the insured half that burnt down and you deserve a full payout, but the insurer can obviously say the opposite and that you deserve nothing. The concept of average resolves this disagreement sensibly.