EU Gender Directive
Discussion
Ninjaboy said:
You can use all the condesending language you like, i understand the situation perfectly i just don't agree with it and i don't see how it's fair to the indiviual.
You're right, it isn't fair to the individual. It never can be fair. Is it fair that someone with a serious illness can't get life insurance? Is it fair that someone who lives near a river that often floods can't get flood insurance on their house contents?But is it fair that people who live on a hill or are in perfect health should pay more so those less fortunate can pay less?
Insurance was never meant to be fair, and never can be fair. It's based on perceived risk.
Zeeky said:
There are plenty of women who are a higher risk than men. This disproves the assertion that being male means you are a higher risk.
No it doesn't. Edited by Zeeky on Saturday 17th November 22:42
A 17 y/old can go a year claim free in a Ferrari, and his granny my have an horrendous claim in a Mini Metro. That doesn't prove he was a lower risk. It only proves that he has bucked a trend.
I think that the premiership will be won this season by Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea. If, come the end of the season, QPR win it, I don't think you can point to me and say I was wrong to think what I thought. You can certainly say, in this particular season, my educated guess was wrong. But it was still the best guess to make given the knowledge available to me at the time.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No it doesn't.
A 17 y/old can go a year claim free in a Ferrari, and his granny my have an horrendous claim in a Mini Metro. That doesn't prove he was a lower risk. It only proves that he has bucked a trend.
He may have bucked the trend because he was one of the few high risk people who didn't claim or because he was a low risk in the first place. The insurance company does not have sufficient information on which to calculate risk. Their calculations are huge generalisations. Not quite stereotypes but still, generalisations. Making generalisations about individuals according to protected characteristics is potentially unlawful. It is actually unlawful to calculate insurance premiums on that basis in relation to gender.A 17 y/old can go a year claim free in a Ferrari, and his granny my have an horrendous claim in a Mini Metro. That doesn't prove he was a lower risk. It only proves that he has bucked a trend.
Edited by Zeeky on Sunday 18th November 01:01
The problem here is that statistics are descriptive and not proscriptive. You can say with some certainty how many people of a certain age have had an accident. You can use that to predict how many people of that age are likely to have an accident in the future. What you can't do, is select an individual from that population and state accurately what the probability of that person having an accident is.
To an individual it is therefore unfair, since you can't possibly take into account that he is the most skilled an observant driver who ever lived. Insurance companies are not interested in individuals however, they are only interested in populations. It is similar in a way to a casino. They aren't bothered about the odd individual winning from time to time, since they know the odds are in their favour in the long run. To the casino, it doesn't matter who wins. To the individual it makes quite a big difference!
There is no way really to reconcile this conflict of interest. The more information given, the more "accurate" the quote will be, however it would result in some rather perverse decisions since it is possible to draw correlations between all sorts of unrelated data without there being a causal link.
To an individual it is therefore unfair, since you can't possibly take into account that he is the most skilled an observant driver who ever lived. Insurance companies are not interested in individuals however, they are only interested in populations. It is similar in a way to a casino. They aren't bothered about the odd individual winning from time to time, since they know the odds are in their favour in the long run. To the casino, it doesn't matter who wins. To the individual it makes quite a big difference!
There is no way really to reconcile this conflict of interest. The more information given, the more "accurate" the quote will be, however it would result in some rather perverse decisions since it is possible to draw correlations between all sorts of unrelated data without there being a causal link.
Zeeky said:
He may have bucked the trend because he was one of the few high risk people who didn't claim or because he was a low risk in the first place. The insurance company does not have sufficient information on which to calculate risk. Their calculations are huge generalisations. Not quite stereotypes but still, generalisations. Making generalisations about individuals according to protected characteristics is potentially unlawful. It is actually unlawful to calculate insurance premiums on that basis in relation to gender.
Insurance has had a specific allowance for objective justification when it comes to gender since 2010. This is not something available for race. So even if we could show that there was a proportionate business aim in so pricing, we could not.Edited by Zeeky on Sunday 18th November 01:01
However, there are clear guidelines, from both the ABI and the Treasury, in reporting and publishing the statistics that back up the pricing differential. It is unlikely that any insurer following these guidelines would be found to have not had objective justification.
Of course, it doesn't work at the individual level, as others have said. It only works due to the Law of Large Numbers, i.e. the group.
Test Achats was about the EUs similar allowance for Financial Services. So it isn't the case that we can't now discriminate based on gender, it is that our exemption is being removed.
In Personal Lines motor, we have plenty of objective justification for gender. And for much of pricing it isn't THAT much of a difference. And it tends to reverse at about 60/65 anyway. Older women become riskier, on average. Postcode is likely to give a much higher premium difference than gender in a 40 year old. You can of course argue that Postcode rating is a proxy for Race and/or Class.
Where this has hit hard is Life insurance, where gender was the primary rating factor with age. Smart LifeCos are using TA as catalyst to think harder about their rating.
Of course, you can still use brand to attract men or women.
Put you advert on PH, and another on Mumsnet. And discount MumsNet
Of course, Noger is right. It's disingenuous, but insurers have done if for years.
No insurance co would be allowed to deny insurance for Gypsies, but they can refuse to offer insurance for tarmaccers, fairground operators, those without a permanent address, scrap metal dealers, etc etc. Thus ruling out gypsies without saying so.
There's nothing to stop insurers loading for anyone who walks down the street topless in the summer, whilst not specifically charging extra for men.
No insurance co would be allowed to deny insurance for Gypsies, but they can refuse to offer insurance for tarmaccers, fairground operators, those without a permanent address, scrap metal dealers, etc etc. Thus ruling out gypsies without saying so.
There's nothing to stop insurers loading for anyone who walks down the street topless in the summer, whilst not specifically charging extra for men.
Noger said:
...Insurance has had a specific allowance for objective justification when it comes to gender since 2010. This is not something available for race. So even if we could show that there was a proportionate business aim in so pricing, we could not....
Test Achats was about the EUs similar allowance for Financial Services. So it isn't the case that we can't now discriminate based on gender, it is that our exemption is being removed.
You are confusing conditional exemptions with 'objective justification'. Objective justification still applies.Test Achats was about the EUs similar allowance for Financial Services. So it isn't the case that we can't now discriminate based on gender, it is that our exemption is being removed.
The exemption allows the lawful discrimination based on gender subject to reasonable use of particular actuarial evidence. In other words you could discriminate subject to certain conditions.
The exemptions that apply to insurers discriminating on gender can be found in Section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act and since 2010 paragraph 22, part V of Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010.
These exemptions were generally accepted to be compatible with the EU Gender Directive of 2004 because of Article 5. The ECJ has ruled that Article 5 is transitory and as a consequence, on its expiry the exemptions cease to apply.
The ECJ has not ruled that 'objective justification' does not apply to sex discrimination.
Zeeky said:
You are confusing conditional exemptions with 'objective justification'. Objective justification still applies.
I don't believe I am confused Often bewildered, however !Objective Justification only applies to indirect discrimination.
Thus, I believe, you could charge builders a higher premium based on them being, well, builders. And claim it was a legitimate business aim.
But not use shoe size, or handbag purchases as a proxy for gender.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Of course, Noger is right. It's disingenuous, but insurers have done if for years.
No insurance co would be allowed to deny insurance for Gypsies, but they can refuse to offer insurance for tarmaccers, fairground operators, those without a permanent address, scrap metal dealers, etc etc. Thus ruling out gypsies without saying so.
There's nothing to stop insurers loading for anyone who walks down the street topless in the summer, whilst not specifically charging extra for men.
See above (I think). You may get away with the "Scrap metal dealer" argument. You could show they are a high risk.No insurance co would be allowed to deny insurance for Gypsies, but they can refuse to offer insurance for tarmaccers, fairground operators, those without a permanent address, scrap metal dealers, etc etc. Thus ruling out gypsies without saying so.
There's nothing to stop insurers loading for anyone who walks down the street topless in the summer, whilst not specifically charging extra for men.
But you could not use Toplessness. Or sporting a Mo in Movember.
streaky said:
BertBert said:
The probability of a person committing a crime given they are a criminal is slightly greater than the probability of a person committing a crime if they are in the non-criminal group.
By definition, the probability of a criminal committing a crime is one.Streaky
Bert
Noger said:
But you could not use Toplessness.
In these days of skin cancer, going completely topless in summer shows a cavalier attitude to risk.The same reason insurers charge extra for drink drivers. Not because they might drink again, hardly anyone gets 2 drink drives. It's because someone who takes the chance with drink driving, given the severity of the consequences, is obviously not the type of person who stops at an amber light or who never overtakes on a bend. They are risk takers by nature, as their DR10 offence proves.
BertBert said:
streaky said:
BertBert said:
The probability of a person committing a crime given they are a criminal is slightly greater than the probability of a person committing a crime if they are in the non-criminal group.
By definition, the probability of a criminal committing a crime is one.Streaky
Bert
If there is any disingenuity, it is in your statement that maligns the law-abiding. Lord McAlpine's lawyers will be writing.
Streaky
TwigtheWonderkid said:
g3org3y said:
So as expected, insurance for women to get more expensive rather than that for men becoming cheaper?
Shock horror!
streaky said:
What is devious, crafty or not open about a factual statement?
If there is any disingenuity, it is in your statement that maligns the law-abiding. Lord McAlpine's lawyers will be writing.
Streaky
Well you are either more stupid than I think you are and actually mis-understood what I said, or you were disengenious in pretending that you did.If there is any disingenuity, it is in your statement that maligns the law-abiding. Lord McAlpine's lawyers will be writing.
Streaky
If you are short of comprehension, please say so and I will try to explain the point made in simple terms for you.
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff