• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Insurance Gender Discrimination to End?

Surely this will just mean they bump up the price for women so that it is in line with men?

Doubt the insurance companies are planning on taking a hit.
 
Surely this will just mean they bump up the price for women so that it is in line with men?

Doubt the insurance companies are planning on taking a hit.

"There seems to be a general view that young men's premiums will fall a little, perhaps up to 10%, but young women's will rise more, perhaps up to 30%."
 
Personally I think this is a load of rubbish. I was working in life assurance until September and had seen about these regulations coming in - women tend to have longer life expectations than men so surely their life assurance premiums shouldn't be as high? Insurance underwriting is about the risks that things bare, and if they're not allowed to take into account an important statistic in many types of insurance then the premiums won't actually reflect the risk that individuals face. By the way I'm a man and not just some feminist on a rant.
 
Personally I think this is a load of rubbish. I was working in life assurance until September and had seen about these regulations coming in - women tend to have longer life expectations than men so surely their life assurance premiums shouldn't be as high? Insurance underwriting is about the risks that things bare, and if they're not allowed to take into account an important statistic in many types of insurance then the premiums won't actually reflect the risk that individuals face. By the way I'm a man and not just some feminist on a rant.

It is silly labelling it as "discrimination", we are biologically different and that is what protection insurance bases its premiums on. Insurance premiums are designed to balance risk, as soon as you try to standardise things it just means people get dragged down to the odds of the riskiest group.
 
Is it right to charge me extra for my driving insurance when they haven't even seen me drive yet? When I finally get my licence I'll be proving to the world that men deserve equal insurance to women 8)
 
Basically men get the hump going at 50 and overtake all over the shop

Whereas women are quite happy to pootle along at 50, so they have fewer crashes

Innit
 
Personally I think this is a load of rubbish. I was working in life assurance until September and had seen about these regulations coming in - women tend to have longer life expectations than men so surely their life assurance premiums shouldn't be as high? Insurance underwriting is about the risks that things bare, and if they're not allowed to take into account an important statistic in many types of insurance then the premiums won't actually reflect the risk that individuals face. By the way I'm a man and not just some feminist on a rant.

Nail on head. The reason why woman pay lower premiums is because statistically they have less costly accidents. I think they actually have more accidents than men, but the average cost of the accidents is much lower so overall cost the insurance industry less. What really drives up the costs is the practice of ambulance chasing.

I know somebody, who we shall call Miss A. Miss A had an accident a few months back when she got rear-ended at the lights. She had stopped at a red, the person behind wasn't paying attention and went in to the back of her. It was a relatively low speed collision so there was only minor damage to her car. The damage got put through the insurance and everything was fine in that respect. However, a few days after the accident she got a call from a lawyer who said they could get her compensation for her injuries. She had no injuries, no whiplash, no trauma... nothing. As part of the process however she was advised by the lawyer to complain about whiplash, get a doctor's appointment, exaggerate the incident and try and get the doctor to issue some kind of statement declaring she had suffered from whiplash or such like. She did all of the above, and the other driver's insurers offered to pay her ?ú2,000 in compensation.

The lawyer then advised her not to take it! They said she should threaten to sue and hold out for more, and indeed the lawyer more or less guaranteed that he could get her double. If she ends up getting a ?ú5k payout, who ultimately pays? Us, that's who. The insurer of the other car will pay out the claim, and then will increase their premiums across the board to cover the increased liabilities they face.

From the start I was dead against her going down this route, but she's always had a problem with morals. I'm now hoping that the other insurer puts her to proof about the alleged whiplash, because she will be unable to prove that she had suffered any injury and the claim will fall flat on its face. I hope that she gets nothing as it will serve her right. In my view it is insurance fraud, and is no different to burning down your house to claim on the insurance. Anyway, that is the reason why insurance costs are so high, not because woman do not pay enough insurance.
 
It's still discrimination, no matter what the figures suggest. If statistics suggested one skin colour caused more accidents than another skin colour and insurance companies therefore charged more, that would be discrimination x100000
 
England and Wales now has the highest number of personal injury claims for the whole of Western Europe. Experts estimate there are more than 1,500 such claims every day.
Despite suspicions that many are fraudulent, insurance companies claim they are difficult to challenge if a doctor has provided a certificate.

But Mr Robinson said: ‘Cases like this are raising premiums across the country because insurance companies are just settling them. My insurance company also wanted to settle it, but I said, “No, I am going to challenge it.” ’ But unknown to the cab driver, Mr Robinson, from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, was a physiotherapist by profession, and one of his jobs was to assess whiplash cases on behalf of insurance companies

Mr Robinson was driving his Vauxhall van in Dewsbury, six miles from his home, when he pulled up at lights. He realised he had crossed the traffic line by a few inches, and decided to reverse back at about 5mph.

He accidentally touched the front bumper of a Toyota Corolla minicab behind him, which did not damage the car’s bumper in any way.

He and the driver had an amicable conversation and left, but Mr Robinson was stunned when his insurance company, Blue Fin, said that the driver was claiming ?ú800 damages as well as ?ú2,000 in a personal injury claim for ‘severe whiplash’.

Mr Robinson’s insurance company said it would settle the claim because the driver had all the correct medical assessments as well as garage receipts.

But Mr Robinson doubted the driver’s claim for whiplash. He said: ‘I decided he could not have got such a whiplash, and I was going to act both as a professional witness and as defendant.’

He said that at a hearing at Dewsbury County Court, a judge heard evidence that the driver, Nazir Hussain, from Dewsbury, had made such claims four times before.
‘The judge threw the case out, and the driver has to pay mine and his legal fees, which have come to ?ú5,000,’ said Mr Robinson.

‘This was a victory for all those going through the same thing – knowing they have not caused any serious damage, yet claimants receiving nice financial handouts and the rest of us having our motor insurance premiums increased on the back of all this.’

Mr Robinson added: ‘I believe this was a landmark case, because not many people take these cases to court in the first place.

‘Also, when these cases go to court, they are usually settled in the alleged victim’s favour. But this has a set a precedent because it shows these cases can be successfully challenged.’

Mr Hussain refused to comment.

Critics ascribe the growth in such claims to the rise of ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers who make their money by chasing down accident victims and encouraging them to claim compensation in legal actions they might not have contemplated in the past.
 
This gender discrimination issue with insurance costs is a great instance of a world gone mad. Men and women are different and behave differently. They do have different needs (although sometimes these combine!;) and the cost of insuring them should be treated solely on the basis of risk. This whole judgement is so bonkers I am amazed we didn't say loud and clear that we would ignore it and carry on being British and sensible.
 
Back