ECJ rules that gender-based insurance pricing is unlawful

  • Print
  • Comments (8)

Readers' comments (8)

  • Distinguish/ discriminate? Tomayto/ tomarto. Either you are lawfully entitled to distinguish/ discriminate on the basis of gender or you are not (empirical justification (or otherwise) notwithstanding): distinguishing that favours a gender (or enterprise or industry) is still discrimination (and, it goes without saying, such favour to one gender will be to the prejudice of the other gender too).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So thanks to this ruling a man will need to have more in his pension pot than a woman to get the same pension (because his life expectancy is shorter).
    Yet apparently that's not discriminatory.
    A typically stupid decision from a typically moronic court.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Other way round Euroscep Tick...
    Man has £100k in pension pot, retires at 60, actuary says 20 years to live, Man gets £5k pa.
    Woman has £100k in pension pot, retires at 60, actuary says 25 years to live, Woman gets £4k pa.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If statistics showed (say) that black drivers were safer than Asian drivers, would Laurence Besemer want insurance companies to ask for ethnic background before insuring? Thankfully (so far as I'm aware) we don't collect such statistics and rightly so.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anon 3.28pm
    That's the position now. But in future insurance companies cannot take into account the life expectancy differences between the sexes. So they will get the same amount p.a. - the man for five years less.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous | 1-Mar-2011 3:32 pm
    thank you, that is exactly the point. you have no say in what demographic you are born into, and it isn't fair to pay the price for what a small percentage of your category are doing. most boys under 21 arent 'boy-racers,' its just that the percentage of accidents in that group are higher than the percentages of others. you don't hear many feminists or postfeminists fighting for equal insurance charges - if the shoe was on the other foot they'd know how annoying it is for this kind of thing to go overlooked

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This decision is awful. I f you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex then age is unlikely to hold up. Therefore I can claim that I should be charged the same motor oinsurance premium as a 40 year old. This is crazy.
    For the record, I do believe that race-based insurance premiums are fine. I cannot see the problem with any actuarially determined extra risk being reflected in pricing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On a practical note for those who believe race is a legitimate basis of calculating insurance premiums: (i) there's no scientific definition of race (ii) look at the difficulties South Africa had when it tried to apply law on the basis of race and (iii) the point is that people within a group often vary as much as people across groups. THINK!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (8)