MSE News: Insurance costs to soar as gender discrimination banned

musicmaker29

Percy1983 wrote: »

Any comments back weren't aimed at you sorry if they seemed if they where, having the same debate with 2 people at the same time.

I do believe this comes down to very different outlooks, I believe people should look after themselves, eg you say what about those who can't afford insurance, simple answer get a better education/job and earn more.

By all means I am happy to agree to disagree on the matter, we will never reach a conclusion we both agree on.

As I say as much as I disagree with the system I will keep playing along with it, but this judgement has taken it one step in the right direction in my eyes.

I disagree with you - well, I agree that, on the whole, people should look out for themselves, but the question here is one of legal liability that is a separate matter to insurance.

I.E. - if I were driving along and carelessly drove up a kerb seriously injuring someone then that accident would be MY fault. I would be legally liable to pay. Therefore, my insurance would cover it. If (under your proposal) I had opted not to have insurance then I would simply end up in jail and the person under the car would get nothing.

Changing this system would involve removing the onus that is currently on drivers to drive properly - 'if I crash into someone they will pay, not me, so who cares.' I also think that if someone has done something wrong then THEY should pay, not the law abiding other party.

It's a legal responsibility that everyone has, and your insurance only exists to cover your legal responsibilities which are nothing to do with the insurance system itself.

Hereward

Percy1983 wrote: »

Trying not to drop to insults but you are showing limited intelligence here.

I ahve explained a very simple system which could work and you don't understand it, feel free to disagree but at least know what you are arguing against first.

Anyway I will explain the system which could work to you in one post to try and close allt he points you clearly don't understand.

People choose to insure there car, if insured and it gets damaged regardless of who is to blame your insurance fixs it, like wise if you are not insured you are responsible for all loses to in relation to your car regardless of who is to blame.

Apply similar to health/life insurance, I get crippled in accident in said car, my insurance pays, if sombody gets crippled in an accident involving me there insurance covers it.

By all means disagree with it, but to claim I have a lack of intelligence due to your lack of understanding is a bit silly.

What you describe above already happens with insurance today. Your insurance company just claims their costs (which would include any payments to you) from the party that is legally liable.

lisyloo

Your insurance company just claims their costs (which would include any payments to you) from the party that is legally liable.

Not in all cases they don't.

If someone is unidentified (hit & run) there is no-one to claim off.
The other party may be uninsured e.g. a pedestrian. (My FIL had a pedestrian run into his car, the insurers did not pursue him).

There are lots of cases where they are either unwilling, unable or it isn't cost effective to pursue someone else.
I do agree with you though, that if they CAN insurers will try to recover their costs from the liable party, it simply isn't always possible in practice.

Percy1983

So if I get legal insurance to cover my actions I shouldn' need to insure my car?

lisyloo

So if I get legal insurance to cover my actions I shouldn' need to insure my car?

Err no.
Legal insurance just covers the ability to sue someone, it does not guarantee compensation e.g. no point suing a tramp.

AndyGuil

smk77 wrote: »

I fear this. If my wife's premium goes up to compensate their reduction in my premium then fair enough. We won't be better or worse off. However, her premiums will go up and no doubt mine will too to cover the "other cost".

Any chance that us men can claim back for the years we've been over charged? I couldn't claim anything from the banks because I've been careful with my money - perhaps I can claim something back from the insurance companies because I've been a careful driver - despite being male!

That will be very interesting if we can claim back the difference. I don't see why not. Does anyone know the answer?

soco1

Insurance should be risk based, that's the whole point - you take out a policy based on the risk you present and statistics are an important basis for those risks.

I'm also annoyed at the apparent discrimination as far as what your job title is.
If I put down Immigration officer I get one price, if I go for Civil Servant I tend to get a cheaper price even though an Imm Off is a civil servant! I was also a FT student a couple of yrs ago working part time and used to also try that as my main vocation to see which came out the cheapest.

And to really be offensive, I'm told if I take redundancy later this year my policy cost will jump up by just over 50% despite the fact I'll probably be less of a risk as I'll not be doing an 80 mile commute every day on motorways and urban roads and my annual mileage will plummet.
How can it be fair/right/moral to have such a variety of prices with the same insurer when I am the same person, have held the same licence for the same number of years and have been claim free with 14yrs NCD to my name. Having found out today that I'd face £120 increase just because I'd lost my job really makes me see why some people just don't bother getting insurance or simply lie about their job.

dunstonh

If I put down Immigration officer I get one price, if I go for Civil Servant I tend to get a cheaper price even though an Imm Off is a civil servant!

That probably isnt risk related but marketing related due to negotiated discounts by the union.

And to really be offensive, I'm told if I take redundancy later this year my policy cost will jump up by just over 50% despite the fact I'll probably be less of a risk as I'll not be doing an 80 mile commute every day on motorways and urban roads and my annual mileage will plummet.

The unemployed are more likely to commit fraud.

How can it be fair/right/moral to have such a variety of prices with the same insurer when I am the same person

You woudlnt be the same person though in each of those scenarios.

makes me see why some people just don't bother getting insurance or simply lie about their job.

And if they are in an accident and caught then they suffer the consequences. The other party can claim against their assets and can potentially bankrupt you.

There is no justification for committing a crime. Next you will be saying you see why burgulars commit crime.

soco1

dunstonh wrote: »

There is no justification for committing a crime. Next you will be saying you see why burgulars commit crime.

I'm not proposing to commit any crime and I am the same person with the same driving ability etc whatever job I am doing. Just because I change job does not mean I suddenly become more or less reckless or take more or less risks.

dunstonh wrote: »

The unemployed are more likely to commit fraud.

Also becoming unemployed would not make me any more likely to commit fraud compared to when I was working. I have always been properly insured and will continue to do so I'm merely pointing out yet another form of discrimination when it comes to getting car insurance quotes.

dunstonh

Also becoming unemployed would not make me any more likely to commit fraud compared to when I was working. I have always been properly insured and will continue to do so I'm merely pointing out yet another form of discrimination when it comes to getting car insurance quotes.

The problem is that its not about you as an individual. Its you as a statistic in a pot of statistics with the risk being covered across the pool of individuals So, if unemployed are 25% more likely to suffer a claimable event then the premiums will be higher because of that. You could be in the 75% that do not but you are paying for the 25%.

Insurance pricing is effectively discrimination across the board. The problem is what alternatives do you have. If you couldnt price per risk then costs would rise for the majority or companies just wouldnt offer cover.