Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wcom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!wcom!frodo
From: frodo@wcom.UUCP (Jim Scardelis)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Women/men and car insurance
Message-ID: <145@wcom.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 18:53:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: wcom.145
Posted: Fri Jul 12 18:53:43 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 14:37:32 EDT
References: <524@rtech.UUCP> <6700019@pbear.UUCP> <847@oddjob.UUCP>
Organization: Warner Computer Systems - Saddle Brook, NJ
Lines: 31

> peterb@pbear.UUCP responds to:
> >>>       A friend of mine tried to get insurance on her car but the
> >>> insurance companies (3 of them before she said to hell with it)
> >>> refused to consider her for low cost insurance because her husband had a
> >>> marginal driving record (2 tickets in 6 months after 12 years without
> >>> a single violation)
> >>>
> >>> jeanette l. zobjeck
> >
> 
> I think you have missed the whole point, Peter.  The insurance
> companies in question here are deciding this woman's eligibilty
> based on HER HUSBAND'S driving record.  If they do not apply the
> converse equally to married MEN, then these companies are ripe
> targets for legal action.  If they do consider wives' driving
> records the practice is still highly questionable.

	Why is it questionable? Isn't it *very* likely that her husband
will, at some point in time, drive her car? If she doesn't want his
record considered, then she should be required to guarentee that he will
never drive the car. 

	Most states treat the husband and wife as a single unit when
insuring cars.
-- 
				Jim Scardelis
uucp: {vax135|ihnp4}!timeinc!wcom!frodo		
ARPA: 1891@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
"The opinions expressed herein are those of my computer, and not necessarily
      those of myself, Warner Computer Systems, or any other computer or
        company along the line. "