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."