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. "