The ABI added that it was disappointed with the ruling that outlawed the practice from 21 December 2012 and hoped customers would not be put off by it.
Fears had been raised that the judgment could have been introduced immediately and, in a worst case scenario, enacted retrospectively.
This could have resulted in a chaotic period as some providers removed products to update underwriting systems while a mass re-pricing took place as the market sought to find the correct level for risk pricing.
Roger Edwards, proposition director of Bright Grey and Scottish Provident, told COVER he was thankful for the transition period but disappointed the practice had been banned.
"It undermines the insurance principles that have been in place for hundreds of years and I just do not believe its discrimination in the politically correct sense that the ECJ have judged it to be, but we're going to have to comply with that," he said.
"If it had happened today there would have been a real flurry of activity for next month so would causing quite a lot of chaos and a lot of uncertainty, but it would've got it out of the way.
"Eighteen months is quite a long time but we should be looking for what are potential alternatives for this," he added.
Edwards acknowledged he was unsure of the full legal implications of the ruling but demand government and the ABI pull out all the stops to achieve a re-think.
"The ABI and government stance was not to rock the boat because if we did it would make the decision a certainty," he explained.
"Well that non-vocal stance obviously didn't help so do we use next 18 months to lobby government and use the industry to find another way of over turning the decision. We should leave no stone unturned to try and find a possible solution because it's the wrong decision.
"I'm all for equality but this isn't discrimination its just pricing and its common sense," he added.
Edwards view was partially supported by the ABI which noted that over the next 20 months insurers would have large scale changes to make including amending all affected policy documentation, contacting customers, updating computer systems and ensuring intermediaries have the right information.
Maggie Craig, acting director general of the ABI, said: "This gender ban is disappointing news for consumers and something the UK insurance industry has fought against for the last decade.
"The judgment ignores the fact that taking a person's gender into account, where relevant to the risk, enables men and women alike to get a more accurate price for their insurance.
"It will be crucial to ensure this news does not put people off having vital insurance that protects them against accident or illness, or provides an income in retirement. Each company will have to respond to the ban in the way they feel is in their customers' interests.
"Adaptation during this transition period will be challenging, but all insurers will be doing everything they can to ensure as smooth a change as possible for customers," she 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
Common Sense
Is there anyone out there other than the bureaucrat who thought of this that thinks this change is really a good idea? Also, should all EEC languages that have gender in their vocabulary, ie French, German etc, be forced to stop using the very discrimatory and highly offensive 'Le & La' or 'Der & Die' etc? Doubleplusthink is coming!
Posted by: Cynic | Mar 02 2011
Stepping up to the plate
Now is the ideal time for the ABI to step up to the plate, listen to the industry and show real leadership in attempting to combat this. The insurance cos pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees, if the people at the ABI are not up to it, then changes have to be made
Posted by: Lacey Jones | Mar 01 2011
ABI are toothless
I applaud the comments from Roger re ABI. They did nothing and even advised everybody else to do nothing. Now they're moaning about it and voicing their disappointment! If you do nowt, you get nowt. The trouble is those paper pushers at the ABI will carry on pushing paper, while the rest of us carry the can.
Posted by: Anon | Mar 01 2011
Communism thru the back passage
and that is what I feel this is like! What is the difference in law then between sex discrimination based on proven facts and age discrimination? Someone aged 80 MIGHT live longer than someone who is 18, just as a male aged 65 might die sooner than a female aged 65, but an annuity is going to have to be single sexed. Why not single aged then now? Has the law changed or is it just the interpretation of the law? It sounds like it is the interpretation, in which case, CHANGE THE LAW to match common sense between now and Dec 2012!
Posted by: Nameless | Mar 01 2011
Add your comment