Discrimination on grounds of age

The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that the discount offered by insurance companies to their female clients violated discrimination laws as it was based principally on gender.

Notwithstanding the proven fact that female drivers invariably have fewer accidents and therefore make fewer claims, insurers are now compelled to discontinue this practice forthwith as it is discriminatory.

This leads one to express concern at the premium payment structure currently offered by insurance companies in other instances for vehicle insurance.

It is a long established discrimination principle that age is recognised as not being acceptable grounds and, therefore, illegal, to refuse or apply any policies.

In this aspect I would argue that such a policy exists with impunity with regard to premium payments associated with age and any reductions or increases in relation to vehicle insurance.

For younger drivers, mostly those in the 18-25 years age group, are blanket covered and heavily penalised with much higher premiums while those in the mature age group (usually over 55 years of age) are afforded discounts based purely on age and, while both age groups may benefit from further discounts, these are exclusively based on no claims discounts.

It is undoubtedly true that younger drivers make more claims and more mature drivers make fewer claims but the ECHR also noted that women made fewer claims and were generally safer drivers, yet, still made the ruling it did based solely on discrimination principles. Therein lies the dilemma, for is ageism also not discriminatory? Insurers kindly answer.