European Court says insurance premiums based on sex illegal.

TalkToEU: John

Some interesting news relating to how insurance companies charge higher premiums to men than to women. It will be interesting to see how the prices adapt to the new ruling from the European Court of Justice.

"The European Court of Justice today decided that, from 21 December 2012, it will no longer be legal under EU law to charge women less for insurance than men.

The verdict means that different priced premiums for men and women drivers will now be considered to be in breach of the EU's anti-discrimination rules.

The anti-discrimination rules had a special exception for the insurance industry up to the end of 2012 (at the request of Member State governments).

The argument was that because women drivers make fewer claims, they are a lower risk and could be charged less. The same applied to life insurance premiums for men and women.

However, the Court disagreed.

The Commission will now sit down and look at the implications of the verdict on the EU's law on equal access to goods and services.

Vice-president Viviane Reding, the EU's Justice Commissioner, said this morning:

"I will convene a meeting with business leaders from the insurance industry in the coming months to discuss the judgement’s implications.


Following today's judgement, it is now clear that an insurance company must not distinguish between women and men; all customers must be treated equally. This is a matter of respect for fundamental rights. It is now also becoming a matter of good business practice."

You can read a statement for the European Commission and further background information here.

Pure Sound

Sheila's Wheels springs to mind, they won't insure men :cool:

Its not exactly discrimination though when you consider the general differences between men and women due to hormones etc. Its a statistical fact that men will be involved in more insurance claims then women so why should women have to pay extra premium for these claims.

Through this logic everyone should pay an across the board insurance fee regardless of age or sex. Is it ageist to charge younger drivers more then older drivers? After all it is categorising people due to there description and not down to there personal attributes. Unless insurance companies assess each individual driver we should stick with the usual method.

I don't believe in the high premiums that insurance companies charge and I really think that there should be a cap on % profits that they make. This law allows these companies to justify charging more by inflating womens premiums. So to me this isn't a law that will stop discrimination, it is a law that will enhance insurance companies profits. The EU really come up with the strangest laws.

View

We Need Community wrote: »

Sheila's Wheels springs to mind, they won't insure men :cool:

Its not exactly discrimination though when you consider the general differences between men and women due to hormones etc.

It IS discrimination as the court just ruled.

We Need Community wrote: »

Its a statistical fact that men will be involved in more insurance claims then women so why should women have to pay extra premium for these claims.

It depends on which statistics you choose, doesn't it? The statistics on health insurance costs and claims for pregnancy would show women make such claims. Yet were anyone to advance the argument "why should men have to pay extra premium for these claims?", I doubt you'd find a sympathetic reaction from women (And, imo, rightly so).

We Need Community wrote: »

The EU really come up with the strangest laws.

The EU is us - In this case, the member states (representing us) decided to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex in the EU Treaties. Hence, it is unreasonable to expect the court to rule that sexual discrimination is acceptable.

RandomName2

Idiotic ruling imo - and this is coming from a guy.

Insurance is based on probability, not socialism.

If it is discrimination for private companies to charge guys more because they are statistically more likely to be involved in a car accident; is it discriminatory for a health insurance to charge more to someone who has had several heart attacks; house insurance to charge more to someone who lives in a region which floods annually, etc?

Bizarre. :pac:

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Idiotic ruling imo - and this is coming from a guy.

Insurance is based on probability, not socialism.

If it is discrimination for private companies to charge guys more because they are statistically more likely to be involved in a car accident; is it discriminatory for a health insurance to charge more to someone who has had several heart attacks; house insurance to charge more to someone who lives in a region which floods annually, etc?

Bizarre. :pac:

It's discriminatory to make a broad assumption on the basis of gender, race, and other factors the individual has no control over, and which may be inapplicable to them personally. If female drivers are still less likely to be involved in accidents (and last time I looked, the stats suggested young women drivers were catching up with young male drivers, while there was little difference in the over-30s), the companies can offer a much increased 'no claims' bonus.

If you do it on the basis of actual claims by the individual, then an unsafe female driver will - properly - be charged the same as an equally unsafe male driver. A safe female driver will still pay a reduced rate, while a safe male driver will no longer pay an undeserved premium on the basis of simply being in a discriminated against category.

Discrimination is making a judgement on the basis of categorisation that may not apply to an individual in that category. Equality is not doing so.

After all, men are far more likely to be involved in violent crime than women - should an individual man therefore be judged on that basis in a court of law?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

If it is discrimination for private companies to charge guys more because they are statistically more likely to be involved in a car accident; is it discriminatory for a health insurance to charge more to someone who has had several heart attacks;

One of the major factors that determine your probability of making claims on your health insurance is your age (Young adults tend to be more healthy than old adults). Yet, under our domestic law, our private health insurers are legally required to charge both the same.

Likewise, the "health related" part of our tax rates do not rise with age to cover the additional probability of the elder using (i.e. in effect making claims on) our public health system.

As such, under our domestic law, we already intervene heavily in the insurance market. Ignoring statistical evidence and prohibiting discrimination in insurance is not a new concept...

Stark

RandomName2 wrote: »

is it discriminatory for a health insurance to charge more to someone who has had several heart attacks;

Yes in Ireland. Although I think you should be allowed charge someone more if the heart attacks are a result of their own negligence in not eating right or exercising etc. But not because they're male or female. Similarly I think car insurance companies should be allowed charge people more if they have penalty points, claims, convictions etc. but not because they're lumped into a gender.

Denerick

About time this happened. I happen to share a gender with a group of morons who drive like imbeciles. I don't understand why I am being punished for their idiocy.