Man (77) wins case over motor insurance ban

A 77-year-old man has been awarded €2,000 compensation against the Royal and Sun Alliance (RSA) insurance company for its refusal…

A 77-year-old man has been awarded €2,000 compensation against the Royal and Sun Alliance (RSA) insurance company for its refusal to offer him car insurance. The Equality Tribunal also found that a ban against people over 70 operated by the company was discriminatory under the 2000 Equal Status Act.

Mr Jim Ross bought a new car in 2000, but when he sought to insure it he was quoted a premium he considered exorbitant. He then sought a car insurance quotation from Royal and Sun Alliance by telephone in January 2001, but was refused when he told the staff member his age, and was told the company did not take new business from people over 70.

Mr Ross had a seven-year no-claims bonus, and had been an agent of the Royal Insurance Company until his retirement, but this did not affect the decision.

Mr Ross told The Irish Times yesterday he was "floating on air" as a result of the decision.

READ MORE

Following the refusal he contacted Age Action, SIPTU's retired members' section, the Equality Authority and a number of other organisations, and the authority took his case.

In the meantime he got insurance from Quinn Direct, he said. Asked for his reaction to the compensation, he said: "I didn't do it for money. I did it to prove a point - age does not stop you from driving a car."

The company had denied that its policy of refusing car insurance to people over 70 was discriminatory, and claimed that it fell under an exception allowed by the Act.

This allowed for discrimination if it was based on "actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely".

During the hearing, evidence was heard from statistician Mr Cyril Connolly, a member of the Motor Insurance Assessment Board.

Mr Connolly examined the statistics of the RSA from 1994 to 1997 and came to conclusion that the data could not be relied upon as "there was something wrong with the mechanism used to produce data".

Mr Philip Behan, pricing development manager for the insurance company, gave evidence based on an analysis of accident statistics in 1992.

These showed that the larger claims tended to involve clients at the extreme ends of the age spectrum.

On this basis he had recommended that no new business be taken from people over 70.

This did not affect existing clients on reaching that age.

However, at the hearing Mr Behan acknowledged that some of the numerical calculations in his report, which appeared to have been computer generated, were not accurate, but he was unable to offer an explanation.

The deputy general manager of the company, Mr Rigby, acknowledged that the RSA had "burned its fingers" by a campaign to increase its share of the mature insurance market in the 1980s.

A large increase in exposure to the over-70s market could be damaging to business, he argued.

The equality officer found that, while this might be so, no evidence was brought forward to show that there was a large market of "floating" potential customers in the over-70 age group.

He found, therefore, that there was insufficient evidence to support the company's claim that a change in its policy would expose it to a risk likely to threaten its viability.

Given the statistical information on the risk represented by this age group, he found there were grounds for quoting a higher premium, but not for refusing car insurance altogether.

As well as awarding Mr Ross €2,000, the equality officer suggested that the RSA and other insurance companies review their policies where there was a refusal on the grounds of age.