They are worried the decision relating to the use of gender for underwriting could be ‘potentially massive' and lead the market into chaotic ‘wild west territory'.
COVER revealed earlier this week the European Court of Justice ruling, expected on 1 March, could force insurers to stop using gender for risk differentiation immediately and make them amend their contracts retrospectively.
The initial opinion from Advocate General Kokott declared insurers should not be able to use gender in risk pricing. It suggested a three year transition period for providers to install gender neutral contracts and premium calculations along with revising those policies presently in force.
However, the judges could go further than this, ruling all changes need to be implemented immediately; something providers with older legacy systems may not be able to do.
Peter Chadborn, director of Plan Money, was particularly concerned about any impact on existing policies.
He says: "We are surmising a lot here about the outcomes but it's potentially massive. All kinds of angles could be affected. Advisers' initial concerns will be if there is any retro-active legislation that will affect their existing book.
"That could have a massive effect on their cash flow and is completely out of our control. Secondly they would ask: ‘how is that going to affect new business?"
"When we are positioning new business it could make certain types just completely unattractive - it just won't work," he added.
Roy McLoughlin, senior partner at MasterAdviser, also expressed his fears about the decision but identified a glimmer of hope.
"The fear is what do we end up with?" he said.
"We could take this to the n-th degree and that would be the end of insurance full stop. If they do anything retrospective we are into wild west territory because there would be absolute chaos.
"This is going to have to result in insurance companies systems being re-designed, which is presumably going to put the price up.
"Although, women in particular find it hard to understand with certain products why premiums are higher than for men. If that is a prohibitive factor to them buying then I guess there is a positive side to this equalisation," he added.
Advertisment
Stay up to date with all the latest news, product development and changes happening within the protection and health insurance market.
All of the latest news and features on all aspects of the protection and health insurance market are available from our print edition.
Advertisment
On Air Studio, 32-34 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 8JB
Visitor Comment
Add your comment
Add your comment
Stupidity
If this stupidity actually gets the green light on March 1st i'm going to actively campagn about ageism in insurance and put in a complaint about how i've been discriminated against by being forced to pay more for the same insurance plan (life anc Critical illness) as my younger brother!!! let there be an end to dicrimination all together....
Posted by: Steve | Feb 18 2011
ECJ
Why should it just be gender biased, what about ageism and smoking, how about banning those factors when companies come up with their premiums. Absolute madness and the government needs to stand up and say NO to this and refuse to implement and ignore all European Court rulings on this subject until sense prevails...
Posted by: Stephen Guess | Feb 12 2011
More Institutional Stupidity
Nice one ECJ, let's have some more like this and maybe everyone will wake up to the fact that the EU needs to go back to being a trading block. If 90% of Eurocrats were sacked nobody would miss them and the other 10% would have to focus on what is actually important.
Posted by: Neil F Liversidge | Feb 11 2011
ECJ
So it goes on.....if it is a medical fatc that some genders pose an additional risk when being considered for Insurance what is wrong with that...how far can so called simplification go and that goes for all areas of financial services
Posted by: Darren | Feb 11 2011
Add your comment