European Court of Justice ruling over ban on using gender as a factor towards costs

[Ben Stones]

Early this year the European Court of Justice ruled that insurers are not allowed to use gender as a factor to determine whether someone is a bigger risk factor when insuring them (the insurance cost). However, it is obvious that young male drivers are more likely (and more frequently) to have an accident versus a female of the same age, which is probably one of the underlying factors as to why gender is used as a factor towards what a person has to pay to be insured.

While it may be unfair on those that are generally sensible drivers to use gender as a factor towards the cost of insurance for that category of customers, it will mean prices may be cheaper, or more expensive, for certain people because of the European Court of Justice's ruling.

Insurance, however, is already very very expensive for young drivers and I am sure it puts many people off driving at all and instead catching buses, trains and other forms of public transport. Insurance is very expensive for young people - it can be over £2,000 on insurance alone because of many young people insured claiming to their insurance companies for accidents that may occur. It's unfair on people that don't have the same attitude or mindset as many other young drivers who may drive carelessly. But it's not something that can easily be resolved.

What do you think on the ruling that happened earlier this year by the European Court of Justice? Do you think it is fair? According to The Economist, the ruling was based on the 2004 Gender Directive (and European Directives are different to European Regulations as explained by a Wikipedia article on European Directives: A directive is a legislative act of the European Union, which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result.)

External resources on this ECJ ruling:

The European Court of Justice: Euro-judges strike a blow for Swedish transsexuals | The Economist

ECJ gender ruling hits insurance costs | Money | guardian.co.uk

BBC News - Insurance and pension costs hit by ECJ gender ruling

Opinions:

Is European court gender insurance ruling completely bonkers? | Adam Wagner | Law | guardian.co.uk

Opinions regarding EU 2004 Gender Directive:

EU’s new gender directive and how it affects travel insurance - RCN

UK Government Response to ECJ Ruling:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/cond...d_premiums.pdf

Interesting information regarding UK Government implementation (for compliance to) the 2004 Gender Directive:

Implementing the Gender Directive (2004/113/EC) | Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

[Brian]

It makes sense, I have no doubt in my mind that young male drivers are having the most accidents (lets just say I believe the insurance companies :P ) but you have to take into account roll reversal too. If it was the opposite there would not be cheaper insurance for men, deep down everybody knows that.

Womens rights group are all about equality so long as it does not mean they lose an advantage.

I think the biggest problem you face over in the UK is that insurance is extremely costly and the insurance companies want to do whatever they can to keep that insurance up there. If you put things on an equal footing and they cannot charge more for men then they lose their profit margin.

I think that insurance needs to start off at a base rate, make it so they pay more for their first accident but dont make it kill them either then if they have a 2nd ect make them pay even more. Reward the good drivers and punish the bad. Dont lump everybody into one straight off of the bat.

[DPS Computing]

I don't dispute what has been stated here.

But.... if we're going down the track of young guys are reckless therefore raise their premiums I think we should also go down the track of... more young women are insurance fronting (by getting their cars insured by their parents for their primary usage) - therefore I think young female drivers insurance should be increased due an increased likelihood of fraud!! lol.

I am of course basing my statement off experience. All the lads I knew had their cars insured in their own names but all my girl friends got their mum and dad insuring a car that they blatantly were not even driving!

And also, I'd like to throw into the mix that I have had my license since 18, driven regularly since 19 and owned my own car since 20. I'm now coming up to my 24th birthday without an at fault accident (touch wood!) and without any driving offences.

The formulas insurance companies use are ridiculous anyway. Women would be the first to complain if they were charged more than men for one reason or another. .

[Ben Stones]

I don't dispute what has been stated here.

But.... if we're going down the track of young guys are reckless therefore raise their premiums I think we should also go down the track of... more young women are insurance fronting (by getting their cars insured by their parents for their primary usage) - therefore I think young female drivers insurance should be increased due an increased likelihood of fraud!! lol.

I am of course basing my statement off experience. All the lads I knew had their cars insured in their own names but all my girl friends got their mum and dad insuring a car that they blatantly were not even driving!

And also, I'd like to throw into the mix that I have had my license since 18, driven regularly since 19 and owned my own car since 20. I'm now coming up to my 24th birthday without an at fault accident (touch wood!) and without any driving offences.

The formulas insurance companies use are ridiculous anyway. Women would be the first to complain if they were charged more than men for one reason or another. .

The formula is really simple:

((Risk in driving + Standard rate) x (gender + age)) x profit margin = formulated cost

[DPS Computing]

The formula is really simple:

((Risk in driving + Standard rate) x (gender + age)) x profit margin = formulated cost

Ohhhhh, I thought it was £100 + (how-peed-off-am-i * how-much-can't-i-be-bothered-today) + (age*100) + £10

The £10 is the "love in" fee cos we love them.

And oh yeah, don't forget to times that by 1.2 (inclusive of VAT then ).

[Brian]

Over here theyll jack up your rates based on your credit score too.

If rolls were reversed, there would be uproar.

[DPS Computing]

Over here theyll jack up your rates based on your credit score too.

If rolls were reversed, there would be uproar.

Indeed, I fully agree.

I wish they did take credit score into account - I'd be getting a good discount .