/ Money

Should insurers take gender into account?

Cartoon of woman in car

A new ruling means that insurers can no longer take gender into account when calculating your premiums. But what will this mean in practice – will you be better or worse off – and is it a fair decision?

Today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that insurers won’t be able to base premiums on the gender of policyholders.

At the moment, insurers can take gender into account providing they can justify it on the basis of risk analysis and claims statistics.

But the new ruling means that from December 2012, insurance providers will no longer be exempt from a wider EU principle covering gender equality. Until then, insurers can continue to charge men and women different premiums providing they can ‘ensure that the underlying actuarial and statistical data on which the calculations are based are reliable, regularly updated and available to the public’.

The gender gap

So what does this all mean to you and me? Today’s ruling could see men or women paying more or less, depending on the product they’re seeking to buy.

Take an example: women tend to get a worse deal on pensions as they have a longer life expectancy. As a result of the ruling, their annuity income would rise, while it would fall for men.

But women could find themselves worse off when it comes to car insurance. Currently, young male drivers pay more for car insurance as they’re involved in more accidents and claims than young women.

A ‘disappointing’ ruling

Maggie Craig of The Association of British Insurers, which represents the majority of insurance providers, has called the ruling ‘disappointing’:

‘This gender ban is something the UK insurance industry has fought against for the last decade. The judgment ignores the fact that taking a person’s gender into account, where relevant to the risk, enables men and women alike to get a more accurate price for their insurance. Insurers will now study this judgment carefully to manage negative effects for customers.’

The ruling doesn’t come into effect until the end of 2012 so you shouldn’t see any immediate change to your insurance premiums.

We’ll be keeping a close eye on insurers to make sure that they don’t use this as an excuse to raise prices across the board. But what do you think of these rulings – are they fair? Do you think you’ll be better or worse off as a result?

Should insurers take gender into account?

Yes (74%, 344 Votes)

No (26%, 121 Votes)

Total Voters: 465

Loading ... Loading ...
Comments
Guest
Peter Ruck says:
2 March 2011

What next – people aged 85 years of age be ingentitled to travel insurance to America for the same price as a 25 year old, although there is more likelihood of an older person claiming for serious illnesses, otherwise it could be percieved as ageist! Insurance premiums should be assessed on their level of risk.

Guest
Laurie says:
2 March 2011

I agree with Junes comment “What is the point of actuaries if they’re not allowed to do their stuff? Insurance is the business of quantifying risk – if everyone is to be charged a flat fee then why not call it another motoring tax and let the government collect it?” If the EU says men and women should pay the same then young men and old men should pay the same !! PS I am over 50 and my insurance is now 5 times less than last year because I took my son, who is 19, of my policy this year.

Guest
Vivian says:
3 March 2011

It may be cheaper for women drivers, but neither is it fair that a woman should receive a much lower annuity/pension in spite of having paid as much/for as long as a man.

Guest

Depends on the pension. Teachers have had equal pay for many years – and equal pensions. But the reason for other pension differentials is because women statistically live longer than men – so it is perfectly fair for them to be paid less..

But back to topic – the EU ruling is wrong – because charges are or were based on perceived risk. – anything else is ridiculous..

Shall we see the day when car insurance is completely identical for the driver rrespective of age, experience, competence.- or type of car?

Guest
Graham says:
3 March 2011

So if gender is discrimination then what about age. Should young drivers be discriminated against because they are young ? Therefore their premiums should fall, and the older should pay more.
This is how ridiculous all of these stupid rulings are from Brussels.
They are taking to the extreme letter of the law, no common sense at all.
Are all of the EU states following all the rules from Brussels, I doubt it.

Guest
JER says:
3 March 2011

I have said no because I believe it should be based on risk. However that means that if there is a clearly established difference in risk between men and women, it is reasonable to charge differently. But it still should be closely monitored as that risk becomes less obvious with age and experience.

Guest
K J Phillips says:
3 March 2011

I have been in favour of the principle of the EU since its’ inception but, if this ruling is typical of its’ (our) Court of Justices’ logic then Someone Please Save Us From Such Rulings, or maybe it”s time for a referendum on getting out of the EU.
The current system is not perfect for all cases BUT, it is based on sound principles (though perhaps not always applied with impartiality), and evolves over time and experience.
If this ruling is applied, the UK system will plainly be less fair from that point on.
We are what we are, gender, temperament, aptitude and all those things that affect risk.
Perhaps the EUCoJ will just ban gender next and have done will it, AND we’ll pay then to do it!

Guest
Tony Humphreys says:
3 March 2011

I fear that the only way out of such dictact is by removing power from not only an unelected EU, but politicians too.

If the equality legislation that has forced this, and other recent rulings, had been put out to referendum, then whatever way the vote went, at least we would have a decision that would be what the country had decided on. These issues would have come out in the campaigns, and we would be clear.

Politicians are no longer capable of passing such legislation because of pressure groups and vested interests, and power needs to be returned to the people, not the governments.

After all, if other countries can do it – USA and Switzerland for example, then why cant we.

Guest
Dave says:
3 March 2011

Maybe the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” should be taken into account for insurance. For years I have been paying ridiculous premiums for insurance and I have yet to make any kind of claim. All I can see insurance doing is bumping up the prices for women rather than leveling out the prices for men. Insurance has been ripping people off for years and i’m completely disgusted by the way it gets dealt with by our government. I think there is a bigger issue with insurance than gender discrimination. No claims bonus is a joke! why can someone pay to protect it? so they can make more money when actually there should be no protection whether you can afford it or not. Why should my premiums be bumped up if I do make a claim? they already assume i’m going to crash my car in the first year anyway hence the outrageous price and excess. This gender ruling seems like its just a way to make it that little bit more “fair” to the young males when actually its just going to ruin it for the rest of them.