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