But the costs for men will by and large stay the same. Hold on…has the Insurance Blogger missed the point here?
Wasn’t the European Court of Justice decision meant to outlaw premiums based on gender in favour of a unisex market?
Yes, we can see that costs will rise for women, but those for men should fall as well. The point the court was trying to make the playing field between men and women should be equal.
Now, we have insurance companies stitching up women with higher premiums by running two sets of books – one for the girls and one for the boys- while charging both the boy’s price when the correct price should be between the two.
The ruling is about fairness and balance.
Greedy insurance firms are passing on costs but no savings
The intention was not for greedy insurance companies to trouser the difference when suddenly increasing the premiums for half their customers.
No, far from it. The court wanted a balanced view that involves a slight increase in insurance costs for women while this is balanced by a decrease for men.
The average cost of car insurance for a girl aged 25 is £950. A man the same age pays £1,412. So shouldn’t the net result be both paying £1,181 instead of them both paying £1,412?
It seems to The Insurance Blogger that somewhere along the line, the insurance company is £462 up while the cost of claims and other expenses remain the same.
After all, the amount of claims from men and women won’t change – those statistics the insurance companies are so fond of thrusting in everyone’s faces as justification for charging yet more cash prove that. It’s the pricing model that’s adjusting.
So what we really have here is the insurance industry grasping at a straw to claw in more cash and blaming the whole thing on an anonymous judge in Europe – who just happened to be a woman, by the way.