Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.5 $; site uiucdcs Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!seefromline From: mcewan@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: Women/men and the consumpti Message-ID: <36200228@uiucdcs> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 18:21:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.36200228 Posted: Sat Jul 13 18:21:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 02:28:09 EDT References: <524@rtech> Lines: 28 Nf-ID: #R:rtech:-52400:uiucdcs:36200228:000:1325 Nf-From: uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA!mcewan Jul 13 17:21:00 1985 >>> 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) >>> >>AAACK! This sounds extremely illegal. How do they get away with it? > > > Instead of applying distubution and percentile deviations to every >single application, each insurance company produces cross-tables that take >into account many factors, with one of the major factors being the change in >driving habit (here being negative since he recieved two tickets in past 6 >months after 12 years of clean driving). This "minor" change is amplified by >the formulae to make the premiums larger during the first 6 to 12 months >since those months would be the ones with the largest deviation from the >normal. As time passes and if there are no more tickets, the premium will >drop since the deviation will approach a more "normal" value. I don't think you read the article you are responding to very carefully. The *woman* is being charged more for insurance because of her *husband's* driving record. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "They're clumsy. They're out of shape. They're dead."