This has been around for ages, the idea that gender equality means that using gender to discriminate in the provision of insurance or annuities should be outlawed. But the crunch is coming, with the ECJ ready to rule on March 1.
Proposals for “gender equality” insurance have been around for years. But insurers have always argued that banning gender as a factor when calculating premiums would be ridiculous, bearing in mind the significant differences in the “riskiness” of men and women – women live longer, young men are more likely to have car accidents, and so on. In the end, member states were allowed to opt out of an EU prohibition, provided certain requirements were met. The issue, however, has continued to be controversial, and on 1 March the court in Luxembourg will deliver its verdict on a test case by a Belgian consumer body.
Laith Khalaf, pensions analyst at investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown, says the prevailing opinion in the industry is that the court is going to rule that taking a person’s sex into account is illegal.
If they do rule that way then it will be the triumph of insanity.
There are certain things which are simply as they are. Apples fall from trees, politicians are corrupt and venal and insurance is based upon the real world risks and likelihoods of something happen.
Women live longer than men on average meaning that any specific lump sum will buy a smaller annual income. Male drivers are risker than women so they pay more for car insurance.
This is simply nonsensical: can we leave yet?