Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!bccarty
From: bccarty@whuts.UUCP (Brian C. Carty)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Women/men and the consumption of auto insurance
Message-ID: <164@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 09:08:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuts.164
Posted: Fri Jul 12 09:08:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:37:55 EDT
References: <524@rtech.UUCP> <6700019@pbear.UUCP> <41@uw-june>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 22

> I think you're missing the point, Peter.  Jeanette's friend was upset not
> because her husband's driving record was considered bad, but because it
> was considered at all.  I mean, she's the one getting the insurance, so
> what's her husband's driving got to do with it?  I understand that when
> a married man gets auto insurance, his wife's record is not factored in.
> Why the double standard?  (or is my info bad?)
> 

I think your info may be a bit off.  When a married man gets auto
insurance, it doesn't cost extra to insure his wife like it does to
insure his under-25 year old son, but the driving records of everyone in
the household are still taken into account.  So whether he puts his wife on
the policy is irrelevant, the rate is still the same.  Putting the son
on slaps on an automatic surcharge.  If the wife is involved in an
accident, the premium goes up just as it would for the man.  As the
under-25-year-old son of parents who were involved in 2 separate
accidents in 15 months, I've seen what happened to my portion of the
insurance premium through no fault of mine.
-- 
					Brian C. Carty
					AT&T Bell Laboratories
					Piscataway, NJ