Age discrimination on travel insurance

Bermic

I listened to a report on the tv from Parliament by Harriet Harman a couple of months ago regarding a new bill the government intends to bring out which will ban older people being discriminated against because of their age when buying things like travel insurance etc. Does anybody know what progress has been made on this bill because I have just found out that my annual multi trip policy with Insure&Go which is due for renewal has gone up from £104 last year to £239 this year. This figure is allowing for a 10% discount and never making a claim, ever.The problem is the old 'chestnut', that I have just reached the age of 66. If the above mentioned bill is to be put into force,it might be sensible to wait before renewing my policy,or will this be another headline grabbing statement that will never see the light of day.:rolleyes:

Errata

It's not about discrimination it's about risk.

JonBoy_SCFC

Errata wrote: »

It's not about discrimination it's about risk.

exactly - it's no different to other things which make you high risk in motor insurance like dodgy postcodes liverpool birmingham manchester etc, having children, speeding convictions, being a foreigner in the UK, low NCB etc

dunstonh

I listened to a report on the tv from Parliament by Harriet Harman a couple of months ago regarding a new bill the government intends to bring out which will ban older people being discriminated against because of their age when buying things like travel insurance etc

Harriet Harmon did say something along those lines but the general consensus was that she was potty.

The Association of British Insurers insist that new anti discrimination laws would make it impossible for insurers to conduct realistic risk assessment and could lead to big losses.

In the end of course, rather than swallow the losses, higher risks and costs to insurance companies would be passed on to the customers. If they are unable to raise the price solely for high risk elderly travellers, then they will have to raise the price for everyone in order to continue to be profitable.

A spokesman from the Association of British Insurers, said that he felt that the new laws were simply not fair or viable for insurance companies and their customers who would end up swallowing higher premiums.

He said that the very nature of insurance of any kind, was that it reflects the risk involved and this legislation, although well meant, would prevent insurers from doing that. “Legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, could have the unintended negative consequence of forcing some insurers to withdraw certain products altogether, reducing competition and availability, and pushing up prices for all age groups,” he said.

manrow

I hear what you say dunstoneh, but consider the insurance association answer as scaremongering.

Centuries ago when Lloyds was originally set up the principal was that if premiums were set correctly at more or less the same for all, then everyone would have cover and the extra for those of little risk would rise only marginally. In this present situation the elderly are being demanded to pay huge sums, (does the risk really rise over 100% for one year age increase?). I doubt it.

On a slightly different tack, why do insurance companies demand medicals on the older population for life insurance purposes, when they don't ask for a condition survey on my car at renewal?

Ian_W

manrow wrote: »

Centuries ago when Lloyds was originally set up the principal was that if premiums were set correctly at more or less the same for all, then everyone would have cover and the extra for those of little risk would rise only marginally.

What happened centuries ago is hardly relevant to to-day. I doubt more than a very, very small % of the population had any insurance at all - they couldn't afford it. I also doubt the statistics existed to quantify the risk in anything like the same detail as to-day.
But if you do want to go back centuries does that include no state pension and the Workhouse for the elderly and infirmed of poor means?

If you want discrimination for premiums to apply as you get older then it also has to apply for young people to be fair, surely? A young, inexperienced male driver is many times more likely to have an accident than an experienced older driver. In this utopia of "fair" premiums regardless of age car insurance premiums would be much more expensive for older drivers to subsidise younger riskier ones, wouldn't they?

Harriet Harmon did say something along those lines but the general consensus was that she was potty.

Please don't sell Harriet short. She's completely Barking about everything - not just insurance!

dunstonh

If you want discrimination for premiums to apply as you get older then it also has to apply for young people to be fair, surely? A young, inexperienced male driver is many times more likely to have an accident than an experienced older driver. In this utopia of "fair" premiums regardless of age car insurance premiums would be much more expensive for older drivers to subsidise younger riskier ones, wouldn't they?

That is a very valid point. If applied to all insurances, the cost of life assurance will go up for younger people. Car insurance will go up for older. income protection will virtually become unaffordable etc

krisskross

No seller of travel insurance will even quote for my husband to go to Canada for a week or so. We accept that with his medical history he will be a risk too far.

However he can get European cover so that is where we go. We still mourn the Rockies a bit though.

Errata

On a slightly different tack, why do insurance companies demand medicals on the older population for life insurance purposes, when they don't ask for a condition survey on my car at renewal

They don't, but the premiums reflect it - see afternoon TV adverts.
The value of a car could be £4k - not many people need that level of life insurance.

dzug1

manrow wrote: »

I hear what you say dunstoneh, but consider the insurance association answer as scaremongering.

Centuries ago when Lloyds was originally set up the principal was that if premiums were set correctly at more or less the same for all, then everyone would have cover and the extra for those of little risk would rise only marginally. In this present situation the elderly are being demanded to pay huge sums, (does the risk really rise over 100% for one year age increase?). I doubt it.

On a slightly different tack, why do insurance companies demand medicals on the older population for life insurance purposes, when they don't ask for a condition survey on my car at renewal?

The risk doesn't rise overnight, statistically. It will have been increasing gradually after a certain age. (For an individual, however the risk may well happen overnight - at any age). It would be possible (as with life insurance) to have tables of rates by age - but administratively rather cumbersome.

Shopping around may produce a better rate.

As for cars, they don't ask for a survey (the MoT does that in a limited way) but there is normally a condition in the policy about keeping it roadworthy.

PMISpecialist_2

krisskross wrote: »

No seller of travel insurance will even quote for my husband to go to Canada for a week or so. We accept that with his medical history he will be a risk too far.

However he can get European cover so that is where we go. We still mourn the Rockies a bit though.

Are you both under 74? (if no please ignore the rest) - Does your husband or you have a business of any sort (i.e. rent out a property) OR do some work for a company that would consider taking out company travel insurance (even if it was paid for or part paid for by you the employee)?

Have you looked at company travel insurance?