Lower insurance costs for women 'a breach of EU law', court hears

the_syco

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/18688566/?view=Standard
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/lower-insurance-costs-for-women-a-breach-of-eu-law-court-hears-475831.html
http://www.news-insurances.com/auto-insurance-eu-equality-laws-will-have-women-drivers-pay-higher-insurance-premiums/0167361210

European judges were urged today to rule that insurance companies are breaking EU law if they charge women lower premiums than men because they pose a lower risk.

Interesting. Although I kind of welcome this, I also question it's timing: another way to hike up prices by the insurance companies?

challengemaster

About bloody time

CiniO

Heh I'm curious what are they gonna do now?

Increase the woman's premiums, or lower man's premiums?

Or maybe they take the average.

Voodoomelon

Women make more claims on health insurance yet everyone is charged the same, about time motor insurance was made fairer.

EDIT: What the hell is that Micra doing in that picture? A driver who qualifies for lower insurance no doubt...

challengemaster

Oh, I saw the best one 2 days ago actually - there's a 2-lane 1 way system in and around UHG, yet some woman decided to turn around, go back the way she came in the other lane, nearly hit a car coming in, then attempted to go out one of the entrances into traffic...:rolleyes:

3DataModem

If this happens we will start paying insurance based on mileage. Cheap insurance will be available to low mileage cars with speed tachos installed.

Blitzkrieger

This is great to see and might eventually lead to an end to this sort of discrimination. The whole point of insurance is supposed to be about shared risk, so hopefully we can end the *greedy insurance bustards making the majority of their profits off **young male drivers.

I probably should be happy with the status quo - I'm finally on the cheap side of the fence. With my new car my insurance was less than a third of my old one



*One of my clearest memories of my first insurance policy (which cost me a whopping 1700 pounds on a 1.0 Corsa) was reading the paper the same day. The Independent had a front page article about how tough the insurance business is. The article had an accompanying photo of two well fed insurance company CEOs in expensive looking suits, brand new shoes and massive watches. They certainly looked like they were feeling the pinch.

**Around the same time a friend of mine had just had a kid with his girlfriend and was working three jobs to try and make enough money to support his family and pay his whopping 3000 pound insurance premium on his 1.2 Polo.

Matt Simis

3DataModem wrote: »

If this happens we will start paying insurance based on mileage. Cheap insurance will be available to low mileage cars with speed tachos installed.

Yeah, in dreamland.

The outcome of this is bad for everyone. "Equality" in this sense will mean women pay more (men's prices will of course stay the same, risk hasnt changed etc). Now since a lot of woman you know, live with men, the net result is a lower household income.

This hurts way more people than it helps.

Im all on for lower mens insurance based on an intelligent analysis of the stats, not "less of a difference to a woman's" based on an artificial price increase on their premiums. This is totally against logic and at best pandering to men and at worst, a clever way of concealing a price hike.

Max Power1

About fcuking time is right.

Insurance companies (aka money grabbing scum:mad:) will not reduce male premiums, female premiums will be increased to promote "equality". In this case however, its just an excuse to bleed more money out of us.Mens premiums should be reduced in line with womens - or at least averaged out.

inforfun

CiniO wrote: »

Heh I'm curious what are they gonna do now?

Increase the woman's premiums, or lower man's premiums?

Or maybe they take the average.

We are talking insurances here... What do you think?
My money is on increasing the premium for women but hey..... pigs might start flying in a very cold hell.

cantdecide

I remember the bad old days of car insurance all too well.

Back in 2000, my first car was £800. My first insurance was £3,885. never forget that number. I've never had those accidents or claims they said I'd have.

The big argument at the time was how health insurers were prevented from discriminating against older people. Why shouldn't the same be done for younger ones.

Owen

Insurance companies should be made post their annual profits, if they're ridiculously big, then you'd have a good starting point to lobby against their anti male/anti young male prices.

enda1

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Insurance companies should be made post their annual profits, if they're ridiculously big, then you'd have a good starting point to lobby against their anti male/anti young male prices.

Em, http://www.aviva.com/investor-relations/results-and-reports/reports/

Owen

Yeah, I'm aware they do profit reports for shareholders, but it should be done bank style, on the radio, etc.

When I was younger I was crucified, I was paying nearly 3000 Euro at one stage on a bike, then the insurance company underwriting the policy went flop, and I had to pay another 2500 to someone else.

Anan1

CiniO wrote: »

Heh I'm curious what are they gonna do now?

Increase the woman's premiums, or lower man's premiums?

Or maybe they take the average.

Maybe wait for the verdict?;)

Cookie_Monster

while sounding good for equality this will just load women premiums the same as mens IMO.

And if this legislation is valid surely discrimination on age grounds will have to be dropped also, though the companies can just hide behind the "experience" argument that most younger people are less experienced and that's why they are charged more rather than cos they're younger.

mondeo

I've been arguing this for years. This is spectacular news and about effing time aswell

HollyCat

Statistically there is very little between the men and women drivers when it comes to insurance risk - figures for 2007 from the insurance industry are as follows:

Insured Vehicles - Female 48% / Male 52%
Claims Costs - Female 46% / Male 54%
No of Claims - Female 50% / Male 50%
No of Large Claims - Female 38% / Male 62%
Profit - Female 39% / Male 61%

It could be argued that as male drivers drive more they are actually a better risk and should carry lower premiums than women.

Voodoomelon

Not to mention the fact that there are many times more men on the road than women.

oldyouth

HollyCat wrote: »

Statistically there is very little between the men and women drivers when it comes to insurance risk - figures for 2007 from the insurance industry are as follows:

Insured Vehicles - Female 48% / Male 52%
Claims Costs - Female 46% / Male 54%
No of Claims - Female 50% / Male 50%
No of Large Claims - Female 38% / Male 62%
Profit - Female 39% / Male 61%

It could be argued that as male drivers drive more they are actually a better risk and should carry lower premiums than women.

And there's your answer. It ain't the number of claims it's the personal injuries that result from them and males account for more of these type of claims than women

dunsandin

Good. My daughter, whose 22, pays the same insurance as I do, "cos shes a lower risk". She cant drive for toffees, has had a licence a wet week, and I wont get in a car with her for fear of my life. I've no claims, my first insurance was £2700, hers is €420.00. That is just nuts, and boils my blood. Pure sexual discrimination, AND I FEEL VIOLATED.:D

Where do I apply for compensation for my Pain???

Wibbs

I noted similar a few years back. A mate of mine decided she needed to learn to drive. Cool beans. She turned out to be a very good and safe driver in the end Anyhoo at the start of her journey she rang her broker with her details and the quote came back at 800 odd quid. Which perturbed her. So I though Ok let's give me a whirl on the same car, with the same broker, but with 10 years older on top and 15 years full licence and a full no claims bonus. I was quoted 1200 quid. The very next day. Nuff said. There is simply no way in hell that I could possibly be a greater risk compared to an unproven entity. Certainly not on the basis that my gonads are external and hers were not(I was 35 at the time, so the first flush of youthful madness(excuse) had well passed and my record was clear).

CiniO

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

*One of my clearest memories of my first insurance policy (which cost me a whopping 1700 pounds on a 1.0 Corsa)

That's really sad, that young people in Ireland have such a big problem to get their own car.
Incredebly expensive insurance from the one side, and from the other side it's hard to earn good money when you are very young.

Now I feel I was lucky growing up in Poland.
Got my first car in 2001 when I was 19 y.o. It was Fiat Cinquecento Sporting 1.1.
I registered and insured it together with my dad to obtain his NCB, and annual insurance premium was about 70 euros.
Even if you take under consideration that salaries in Poland at these times were much lower, it was still really cheap and perfectly affordable almost for anyone.

CiniO

dunsandin wrote: »

My daughter, whose 22, pays the same insurance as I do, "cos shes a lower risk". She cant drive for toffees, has had a licence a wet week, and I wont get in a car with her for fear of my life. I've no claims, my first insurance was £2700, hers is €420.00. That is just nuts, and boils my blood. Pure sexual discrimination, AND I FEEL VIOLATED.:D

You won't get in a car with her for fear of your life, but you let her drive though?
It it really your daughter?

dunsandin

Cinio, what do you suggest I do, wrap her in cotton wool? Low shot pal. Mind the auld manners there.

CiniO

dunsandin wrote: »

Cinio, what do you suggest I do, wrap her in cotton wool? Low shot pal. Mind the auld manners there.

If I was affraid about my daugher's driving, I would teach her myself, or otherwise I would get good instructor for her. You actually should have thought about it before.
Luckily my daughter is less then 2 yet, so only what she drives is a barbie jeep I don't have to worry so far.

Tigger

ive saiud this before but if insurance is mandatory why dont the govt provide it?
at least provide an option?

Esel

HollyCat wrote: »

Statistically there is very little between the men and women drivers when it comes to insurance risk - figures for 2007 from the insurance industry are as follows:

Insured Vehicles - Female 48% / Male 52%
Claims Costs - Female 46% / Male 54%
No of Claims - Female 50% / Male 50%
No of Large Claims - Female 38% / Male 62%
Profit - Female 39% / Male 61%

It could be argued that as male drivers drive more they are actually a better risk and should carry lower premiums than women.

The big bold bit.....

Traumadoc

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/01/08/story10809.asp

djimi

If they bring in this ruling (that they cannot charge women a lower premium based on them being a lower risk category) will that then open up the door to have all statistical based pricing abolished, such as 17 year old male drivers or perceived high risk Japanese import cars? Im not saying it necessarily should be abolished for all cases, but if you say you cannot descriminate against one group of people surely the same should go for all groups?

Wibbs

HollyCat wrote: »

Statistically there is very little between the men and women drivers when it comes to insurance risk - figures for 2007 from the insurance industry are as follows:

Insured Vehicles - Female 48% / Male 52%
Claims Costs - Female 46% / Male 54%
No of Claims - Female 50% / Male 50%
No of Large Claims - Female 38% / Male 62%
Profit - Female 39% / Male 61%

My big bold bit. There is or at least was another aspect to this I noted when younger. I don't know if it still holds true today so I'm likely out of date on this, but it defo had an impact back then. Namely that far more women than guys I knew were learning/driving on someone elses policy. Usually their fathers, but quite a few on their boyfriends. They had claims, in some cases big ones, yet the policy holder was loaded. A mate a case in point. He put his then GF on his policy and 4 months in she totalled the car and caused extensive damage to another. They split up. She got insurance on her own policy and it was teh average for her age, gender and experience. His pocket was massacred the next year. A few years back I myself had a similar if smaller example of that.

I have a suspicion, unfounded though it may be, that going even further back women would have driven on their fathers policy and then their husbands and the insurance companies wanted to bring them into the market and did so by offering cheap rates to get them hooked. And we've been BS'd ever since.

It should be down to the individual, not the gender. Especially after 25. Men do show up more in the stats when young, but it levels out significantly after that age. I recall reading that more 35 year old women make claims than 35 year old men. Just thinking on my own small sample of male and female drivers. My personal stats would be the opposite of the usual. In that while I know a couple of men who have had big insurance claims, I know way more women who have had big prangs and written cars off. I also know far more women who have slammed into cars in front and have been slammed into from behind causing various levels of damage up to write offs(I'm struggling to name more than three who haven't in both examples). I also recall that was more likely to happen with women than men and that those who slammed into others were more likely to be slammed into themselves. Stands to reason I guess as erratic driving and braking would lead to both.

-Corkie-

Im not sure if its all good news. My insurance on my car dropped 200 euro p/a when I put my wife on the policy...Her car which is reg and insured in her own name was way cheaper to insure as opposed having everything in my name.

mondeo

I think everyone should start out with the same premium regardless of age\sex and get your reductions based on your proven driving history...

I know people always try to say there is no difference but from mortality tables alone, males in early 20s have higher mortality rates :pac:

I think male insurance is insane tbh, but maybe it should be lowered rather than female more expensive. Like that will happen!

RATM

AFAIK New Zealand has a type of national insurance for health which is taken from your salary at source to the tune of 2% or so (much cheaper than our PRSI).
It is then up to the driver whether or not they want to get insurance for their car. If you don't have it and write your car off then tough. If you write someone else's car off then its even tougher- they will pursue you through the courts for payment and are very efficient at making people pay up.

So the state insures you for personal injuries and you yourself are responsible for insuring for at least third party damage.

Far better system IMO, our one just puts billions into the hands of insurance companies year after year.

SugarHigh

RATM wrote: »

AFAIK New Zealand has a type of national insurance for health which is taken from your salary at source to the tune of 2% or so (much cheaper than our PRSI).
It is then up to the driver whether or not they want to get insurance for their car. If you don't have it and write your car off then tough. If you write someone else's car off then its even tougher- they will pursue you through the courts for payment and are very efficient at making people pay up.

So the state insures you for personal injuries and you yourself are responsible for insuring for at least third party damage.

Far better system IMO, our one just puts billions into the hands of insurance companies year after year.

Is that not the same as here? I thought you were only required by law to have 3rd part insurance.

oldyouth

mondeo wrote: »

I think everyone should start out with the same premium regardless of age\sex and get your reductions based on your proven driving history...

You would think it is as simple as that but insurers, and they are the ones who set the rates, disagree. So you think it would work out that everyone starts out at (for instance) €500 per year. The ones that have no cliams continue at this going forward. The 100 young males who get involved in serious claims with multi personal injury claims costing millions are then asked for €2,000 next renewal date, 'cos they've been naughty. How long do you think that system will last. Do the maths

Equality in premiums IS in operation, it's just that the good (or lucky) drivers within every category subsidise the bad ones. The good auld boy drivers subsidise the bad auld boy drivers which, thankfully, is rather low in cost. The good young male drivers subsidise the bad young male drivers and hence the fact they pay thousands

djimi

RATM wrote: »

AFAIK New Zealand has a type of national insurance for health which is taken from your salary at source to the tune of 2% or so (much cheaper than our PRSI).
It is then up to the driver whether or not they want to get insurance for their car. If you don't have it and write your car off then tough. If you write someone else's car off then its even tougher- they will pursue you through the courts for payment and are very efficient at making people pay up.

So the state insures you for personal injuries and you yourself are responsible for insuring for at least third party damage.

Far better system IMO, our one just puts billions into the hands of insurance companies year after year.

It hardly seems fair tho that in the event of an accident I should have to persue a third party thru the courts to claim damages arising from an accident which they caused. Insurance in this country may be an absolute joke but the one thing I do like about the system we have is the comfort of knowing that 95%+ of cars on the road are insured and if one of them hits me itll be sorted with the minimum amount of effort on my part.