Auto Insurance Ruling - Discrimination

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union's highest court on Tuesday barred the insurance industry from charging different rates for men and women, saying the widespread practices amounts to sex discrimination against millions.

http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2011/03/01/eu-court-bans-auto-insurance-sex-discrimination

Do you think the US should follow? I've always thought it was discrimination.

[Peikko 1,575]

It depends if you think that insurance should be sold on the basis of risk or not doesn't it?

[rika60607 215]

Yes. They should also stop discriminating based on age. Discounts based on highest degrees earned and marital status should go too, as well as based on number of miles driven. Stick to determining premiums only based on driving history! Yay.

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union's highest court on Tuesday barred the insurance industry from charging different rates for men and women, saying the widespread practices amounts to sex discrimination against millions.

http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2011/03/01/eu-court-bans-auto-insurance-sex-discrimination

Do you think the US should follow? I've always thought it was discrimination.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It depends if you think that insurance should be sold on the basis of risk or not doesn't it?

Hmm well in the post above - miles driven is a non generalization so yes that should be included to determine risk. However, marriage seems like a generalization. I couldn't imagine an insurance company developing a quote based on race or religion (I bet statically there is a difference in both regards).

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes. They should also stop discriminating based on age. Discounts based on highest degrees earned and marital status should go too, as well as based on number of miles driven. Stick to determining premiums only based on driving history! Yay.

Oh, what a good idea, that would work fine for me; but not so well for new drivers, who are currently considered high risk but insurance that was based on history would likely render drivers with no history uninsurable. Take the kids off the road and put them on bikes, brilliant

Edited May 6, 2011 by The Truth™

[Peikko 1,575]

Hmm well in the post above - miles driven is a non generalization so yes that should be included to determine risk. However, marriage seems like a generalization. I couldn't imagine an insurance company developing a quote based on race or religion (I bet statically there is a difference in both regards).

Insurance companies have always based prices on risk, that's how it works. If they have determined that married people pose less of a risk, I'd lay odds it was statistically true and significantly so. I don't see how race would pose significant risk, and the only thing I can think of that would differentiate risk by religion would be in terms of those who are non drinkers versus drinkers. An insurance company could easily incorporate non drinking in a risk assessment if they chose to.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Insurance companies have always based prices on risk, that's how it works. If they have determined that married people pose less of a risk, I'd lay odds it was statistically true and significantly so. I don't see how race would pose significant risk, and the only thing I can think of that would differentiate risk by religion would be in terms of those who are non drinkers versus drinkers. An insurance company could easily incorporate non drinking in a risk assessment if they chose to.

I saw a stat recently that shows Native American men are twice as likely to have an accident to caucasian men, while US pacific islanders are about 1/2 as likely.

On religion, clearly athiests are the safest, while those who believe in a heaven are the riskiest.

With regard to age, yes I think that should be dropped...it should be based on experience.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Sousuke

[Zero Sum 305]

We need more libertarians protesting about the need to eliminate mandatory car insurance laws.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

We need more libertarians protesting about the need to eliminate mandatory car insurance laws.

We need more people pushing for nationalized auto insurance if its mandatory.

[Zero Sum 305]

We need more people pushing for nationalized auto insurance if its mandatory.

But that's Communism!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Sex Discrimination should be ended

Age Discrimination should be ended.

Mileage is questionable.

We need more people pushing for nationalized auto insurance if its mandatory.

Rules regarding insurance vary state to state. There's no Federal Statute (that I know of) that require you to carry auto insurance.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Sex Discrimination should be ended

Age Discrimination should be ended.

Mileage is questionable.

Rules regarding insurance vary state to state. There's no Federal Statute (that I know of) that require you to carry auto insurance.

Your right, I think some states allow people to create special bonds in leu of insurance.

Also don't get me wrong, if they cut out the discrimination that occurs it won't make insurance cheaper...in fact they'll just rake in more by getting rid of the discounts.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Sousuke

[Jenn! 918]

Of course it's discriminatory, that's the whole point.

And the industry is moving towards usage based insurance. Annual mileage is one of the best predictors of loss there is.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Of course it's discriminatory, that's the whole point.

And the industry is moving towards usage based insurance. Annual mileage is one of the best predictors of loss there is.

Which isn't discrimination IMO (the mileage). Your effectively "using" your insurance more.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Sousuke

[Jenn! 918]

Which isn't discrimination IMO (the mileage). Your effectively "using" your insurance more.

Well, it is discrimination in that it's used to discriminate or distinguish between risks. It's discrimination on the basis of gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. that gets dicey. Those things you can't change.