Political correctness gone mad

Ed Bowsher
by Lovemoney Staff Ed Bowsher on 01 March 2011  |  Comments 21 comments

Today's European Court ruling on alleged discrimination by the insurance industry is bonkers.

Political correctness gone mad

So the European Court of Justice has said today that insurers can’t charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender. This verdict must be implemented by December 2012 and has wide-reaching implications. It’s also a bonkers decision.

The biggest impact will probably be on car insurance. Currently, car insurers typically charge lower premiums for women than men because they know that women tend to be safer drivers than men. This difference between the sexes is especially striking when you look at younger people.

Now the European Court believes that the current approach is sexist. Women pay less for their car insurance purely because they’re female. But personally, I don’t think lower premiums for women is sexist at all.

For me, a sexist is someone who discriminates in favour of men even though women are just as capable as men. So a sexist hospital might only employ male doctors even though women are just as capable as men.

But when it comes to car insurance premiums, the different treatment has a real basis in fact. Women are safer drivers than men and I don’t see why they shouldn’t benefit from that fact.

The ruling won’t just affect car insurance premiums, it will also have an impact on retirement annuities and life insurance.

So who will be the winners and losers?

Winners and losers

I suspect the biggest winners will be young male drivers. Insuring a car for an 18-year old man can be horrendously expensive. Today’s ruling should mean that his premiums will fall a little. However, the best way for a young man to reduce his premiums is to sign up for a pay-as-you-go car insurance policy where an insurance company can monitor where and when he drives.

Women who are paying into a defined contribution pension scheme will also benefit. Currently, when women come to buy an annuity, they get a lower income than men because they are expected to live longer. Annuity providers will now have to pay the same rates to men and women. Male annuities may fall by as much as 13%.

When it comes to life insurance, men are the likely winners. Because women live for longer than men, they have a lower risk of death over a certain time period and therefore pay lower premiums during that period. That will now have to change – women will have to pay more for life insurance while male premiums should fall.

For me personally, this is nothing but bad news. On the downside, I contribute to a defined contribution pension scheme, so my annuity will probably be lower than it would otherwise have been. And sadly, I don’t benefit from either of the potential upsides for men. I don’t own a car so I won’t get cheaper car insurance. And because I don’t have any dependents, I don’t have life insurance either, so no gain for me there

So from a personal perspective, the ruling is annoying, but I’m much more annoyed from a public policy perspective. I think the ruling takes political correctness to a ridiculous new level and I see no sensible reason why the UK shouldn’t be allowed to make its own decisions on this issue.

If you want to find out what ordinary people think about this issue, check out our video: Insurance premiums set to rise.

More:  Why women should pay more for car insurance

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (21)

  • AdAstra100
    Love rating 26
    AdAstra100 said

    That said, I suspect that women are better drivers nonetheless and that is one reason why they represent a lower insurance risk, but I can't prove that. And I guess you could argue I'm being sexist when I say that.

    You can't expect to get away with a throw away unfounded remark like that!

    Women are [probably] a lower insurance risk based on claims value because many of them do drive more slowly, less often and for shorter journeys. Associated minor damage is often accepted, not worth the loss of a no claims bonus or is cosmetic. You cannot judge skill necessarily on the fact that they may have lower claim values.

    One final point lost in the emotive arguments, the extent of widely accessible databases these days makes more personal quotations more easy and opens the negotiation possibilities for anyone unless they have recently qualified and therefore, usually by definition, young.

    Report on 07 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ladymissfear
    Love rating 1
    ladymissfear said

    There's only one answer to this that I can see - remove the people from the insurance calculations. In Australia 3rd Party insurance is paid as part of the road tax so is a standard premium for everyone, no discrimination, centrally administered. In India you can insure your car for damage/theft according to the make/model (and anyone can drive it). Combine these 2 models and I think we would have the perfect set-up, and if we ban no-win-no-fee personal injury claims it'd be even sweeter :)

    Report on 07 March 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4