A European court puts an end to sex-based premiums

"Pricing policies on the basis of characteristics that cannot be altered, like sex, seems unfair to many."

What about age (I've tried to alter it, but haven't yet succeeded)? It's surely age discrimination to charge an 18-year-old more for car insurance than a 45-year-old. And as for giving better annuity rates to a 75-year-old than a 55-year-old - it's an outrage!

I shall state the obvious, and rip away all this confusion.

From now on, females, a low risk category in insurance, will subsidize males.

In annuities, males, a shorter lived category, will subsidize females.

How long will this situation last? How long will the Court which brought in this absurd decision last, given the incredibly vast economic consequences of this decision? It is worth not billions, but trillions of Pounds, Dollars, Euros whatever!

and the winner is... state pension fund! Assuming the take up rate of male annuities does not drop a whole heap, more generous annuities to female pensioners mean less is required from the state. So the hidden benefit (or agenda if you like) is government deficit reduction!

I don't see how statistical discrimination based on gender or age can be justified for car insurance. Even if reckless and risk-taking behavior are correlated with gender, factoring them in is discriminatory vis-a-vis the (minority of) careful and responsible young male drivers. And anyway, such behavioral traits are already priced into insurance premiums through the no-claims bonus.

Gender-specific differences in life expectancy are a different matter and I'd be willing to be more sympathetic to the arguments of the insurance industry in this case. But then they should also take into account behavioral variables such as obesity, smoking and drinking, exercise, etc.

okay... so now I can drive like an idiot (as a lot of my male counterparts already do - based on my own observation and experience) and the insurance company cannot discriminate against me based on my sex using histrical actuarial data.... perfect!
Win - win, for me at least!

I really can't see how anyone either in the consumer or insurer sector stands to benefit from this. I have covered this in my blog - please take a look and let me know if you can see something I can't. http://itsallabitponyandtrap.blogspot.com/2011/03/eu-directives.html

It is odd that a consumer advocacy group brought this case. It is obvious that the big winner from this is the financial services industry which now has an excuse to raise women's insurance premiums and reduce men's annuity rates. My experience is that it is very hard to get a good deal when dealing with the financial services industry and this will make it harder.

I would like to see a similar thing done for employed and unemployed.
I have done temporary (contract work for many years) although I am now unemployed for a few years. It is possible to only get insurance that covers you while you are one or the other. So if you are unemployed but get some temporary work then your insurance is invalid and vice cersa if you are employed but lose your job. On the day your job finishes your insurance becomes invalid. Strangely they charge more to the unemployed even though they are likely to be doing less driving and at safer times.

Now even I want the UK to leave the EC.

I conclude that with this law the new discrimination is in place.

Statistically, women have to pay part of the cost generated by others (men) and finance our behaviour in traffic.