Gender discrimination in insurance to be made illegal

At least it will if this fathead at the European Court of Justice gets her way.

Kokott advised the Court to declare invalid the provisions allowing for the taking into account
of statistical differences between the risks of insuring men and women when setting premiums. She said it was incompatible with the principle of equal treatment for men and women.

Women are often given cheaper life insurance because on average they live longer and cheaper car insurance because they have fewer and less serious crashes on average.

Kokott said that if her view is adopted by the ECJ it should only apply to future policies and a transition period of three years should be implemented to ensure stability in the insurance sector.

Yup, really. She wants to abolish reality in favour of gender equity.

And guess what kiddies? There\’s absolutely fuck all any of us can do about it. Can\’t vote against it, can\’t change government to get it changed, can\’t do sweet FA.

Can we leave yet?

13 comments on “Gender discrimination in insurance to be made illegal

  1. I’d love to see a feminist weigh into this one…

    what argument would/could they use?

    maybe: “Women being punished for the irresponsibility of men…”

    Can they even argue against this because they are getting their much vaunted equality?

  2. I dunno…at least she is willing to take her own argument to its logical conclusion, so respect for that.

  3. I don’t see how you can argue against this without also arguing against, for example, allowing sub 6′ police officers, or weak, slow soldiers.

    Also I believe there’s something of a disparity in parental leave that needs to be looked at urgently if we’re ignoring reality…

  4. I presume this will apply to race also. Good news if you are a black person in Peckham but bad news if you are a white person in Inverness.

  5. ‘Great, cheaper insurance’ – if only. Insurers could either reduce the costs for men or increase the costs for women to match men – call me a cynic but I suspect the latter…

    I detest the EU but find myself in the strange position of agreeing on this one in regard to the existing exemption at least. Her opinion is predicated on the fact that the exemption is supposed to be for biological, not just statistical, differences.

    There is no biological reason why women are a lower risk to insure – it is just a mix of lifestyle, health, environmental and educational statistical differences.

    Insurers should have much finer granularity in their risk assessment than the broad assumption that women are a good risk, just because they’re women.

    They need to look at the actual factors – e.g. how many women-only cheap car policies can lazily afford to offer the ‘standard’ 12000 miles a year allowance simply because the insurer knows full well that many of them only cover 2000 miles a year – on 30mph roads? That’s one example of why they may be cheaper, not because they’re women.

  6. Page with a view said: “Her opinion is predicated on the fact that the exemption is supposed to be for biological, not just statistical, differences.”

    The exemption in the Equal Treatment Directive specifically allows for member states to permit exemptions where actuarial data suggests a clear difference between genders.

    However, it also requires that member states who wish to permit that exemption must notify the Commission and maintain accurate data that demonstrates the difference.

    The default position is that no discrimination can be made. I wonder how many member states decided to go with the flow rather than do what was required to permit the (imo justifiable) different treatment of genders.

  7. There are sound actuarial reasons for all of these differentials in all types of insurance. And they are based on many factors, not just gender.

    And political interference in market based activities never works out well. In the USA, the pols intervened to stop the mortgage companies “red lining” applicants with high risk indicators, and the default rate went way up.

  8. Insurance is a mystical beast. One thing I found out is; it is cheaper to insure a “couple” (married or otherwise) than a single person.

    I’d really like someone to explain that to me.

  9. what Gareth said. Not the EU’s fault. perfectly sane “out” right in the basic legislation. Good. We can stay in, then.

  10. I was going to say ‘Great, cheaper car insurance’ but I think Page with a View is closer to the truth – premiums would end up equalised at male levels, not halfway between the two. So time to buy insurance stocks perhaps, as this looks like a nice little earner for them?

  11. Insurance is a mystical beast. One thing I found out is; it is cheaper to insure a “couple” (married or otherwise) than a single person.

    I’d really like someone to explain that to me.

    It’s that the sort of people who get married are less reckless, so make less claims. I’m sure that the data is there to support it.

    It used to be the case that it was cheaper to insure family cars with large engines than hot hatchbacks, despite the fact that the family cars could outrun them. It was simply that the sort of people who bought family cars with large engines drove them safely.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>