Have there been any legal challenges to the insurance industry’s wide-spread practice of charging men more than women for car insurance? Despite the statistics that women are better drivers then men, I don’t understand how they can legally use this. By the same logic, couldn’t you charge blacks or latinos more (or caucasians, for that matter) assuming one group had a worse driving record than another.
I can understand charging older, more experienced drivers less, if they have a clean driving record. I know my insurance rates went down significantly when I turned 25. But, do I need a sex change to get it even lower?
Oh, and my information could be outdated. Have insurance companies abandoned this practice? I haven’t really checked up on it lately, so I’m just guessing there’s still a price disparity between men and women.
Since insurance companies can charge you differently depending on how often you drive, where you park your car, where you live, what type of car you have (is it fair that Honda Accord owners are charged more for insurance than Datsun owners?), and a whole bevy of other differences, I seriously doubt that sexism has anything to do with it… it’s all about proven statistics and risk vs. reward of insuring you. In some states, insurance companies don’t have to insure you at all.
Besides, there are almost always discounts you can apply for to get cheaper insurance rates… good student discount, safe driver discount, etc.
Don’t blame the company… blame the underwriters. If they didn’t do their job correctly, the company wouldn’t have the money to pay your claim.
If you have an insurance agent, talk to them. I’ve found that my agent has been most helpful in finding the applicable discounts for my driving status and record.
It’s a legal game of risk. Men cost insurance companies more in payouts than women. Older, experienced drivers cost insurance company less in payouts than younger, less experienced drivers.
Sexism is unlawful discrimination between genders based on non-merit opinions. If the statistics do show women cost an insurance company less, the company has its merit-based statistics showing the difference.
OTOH, a company that charges the exact same rate between men and women will meet with great resistance from their clients when the women find out they are paying for male accidents.
It’s a legal game of risk. Men cost insurance companies more in payouts than women. Older, experienced drivers cost insurance company less in payouts than younger, less experienced drivers.:::
But I’m asking if there’s ever been a lawsuit. I mean, sexism is no more legal than racism when it comes to pricing, but if a company give women a lower rate than men, what prevents them from charging a person of one nationality or race less than another?
Sexism is a great deal more legal than racism when it comes to almost everything. The Supreme Court has recognized that there are real differences between men and women, and statistical proof of risk is one of the most justifiable bases of discrimination there is. Race, on the other hand, is considered highly suspect as a classification, and between Congress, the Supreme Court, and the various state legislatures, it’s damn hard to find a legal way do discriminate based on race, even when it seems statistically justified.
I feel I must point out that the younger drivers who are penalized eventually go on to become the older drivers that enjoy the lesser payments, thusly ALL share that penalty at one point.
