Maltese women only stand to lose financially as a result of a recent European Court of Justice ruling, which will raise the price of life cover but bring practically no benefits in the case of health and car insurance, insurers say.
The European Court of Justice ruling, which bans the use of gender as a risk factor to calculate premiums after 2012, will see companies internationally raise the cost of car insurance for women but decrease health insurance premiums because many firms discriminated against women, according to international media reports.
In Malta, however, firms did not make such distinction against women in the case of health insurance and only one insurer had special rates for women. Maltese insurers contacted by The Times did, however, said they differentiated favourably on life insurance, an advantage that would now be lost.
The ruling was made following a complaint by a Belgian consumer group, Test-Achats, which claimed that sex-based insurance policies were discriminatory. The court ruled such distinctions would have to end after 2012.
Women organisations in Malta welcomed the ruling last week, arguing it was an improvement for equality. They also pointed out it had been an international concern that women were at a disadvantage with regard to health and life policies because of their longer life expectancy.
However, Maltese insurers say that, financially, women will be on the losing end practically all round.
Only one motor insurer in Malta makes a gender distinction through a special package for women, who are known to be safer drivers. However, most insurers viewed women’s higher life expectancy favourably for life cover, charging lower premiums than they would in the case of men.
Anton Felice, director general of the Malta Insurance Association, said that, throughout Europe, women’s life expectancy was calculated as being about six years more than men’s and this brought down the premium they paid.
It is too early still to say how much more women would have to pay. However, Dr Felice said he had no doubt Maltese companies would respect the judgment and try to implement it as fairly as possible for the consumer.
He pointed out that insurances did not really discriminate against women but differentiated between genders based on sound scientific data that helped them calculate the risk. In fact, apart from gender, other differentiation factors were applied including age and whether or not a person was a smoker. The industry is worried that the judgment’s main premise could be extended to such differentiating factors. This could work against the consumer because people at low risk would he subsiding those at higher risk and they might opt out of insurance. For instance, younger drivers are more at risk of accident than older ones. If insurances were not allowed to differentiate by age, older people would be subsidising younger more careless drivers.
A health insurer said Maltese companies did not differentiate by gender on health insurance.
The EU Equality Directive aims at safeguarding gender equality in the access to and supply of goods and services. Yet, a temporary exception allowed the use of gender as a basis for the calculation of premiums and benefits if relevant and accurate statistical data are used and published.
The ECJ decision ruled that the exemption to insurers worked against gender equality.