It seems that the traditional discrimination between male and female drivers will end very soon thanks to the European Court of Justice, which has approved the ban on price discrimination and set a three year period for the insurance companies to comply. This is certainly good news for male drivers, especially the younger ones, who are traditionally charged with higher premiums, and also means that female drivers will be subjected to higher premiums as a logical move by the insurance providers to split even the costs in order to comply with the new rules.

The debate over car insurance price discrimination has been a long and heated one. Traditionally male drivers were charged with higher premiums because they were more often involved in accidents if compared to female drivers. And knowing that the insurance providers deal only with risk factors when calculating their rates as a result female drivers were always getting better rates then men. There are a lot of explanations of why female drivers are less risky then men behind the wheel. Male drivers tend to be more aggressive on the road, driving faster and taking more risks. And this of course leads to more accidents and insurance claims filed by men. So, in fact the math behind such discrepancy in rates for different genders can be understood.

Still, knowing how the EU acts regarding any type of discrimination this car insurance feature was set to become the subject for discussion sooner or later. And what may look like a call for justice from the lawmaker and political point of view will certainly give the insurers a bit of a headache when deciding how to comply with the new rules. Because the usual methods of calculating insurance rates for different groups of drivers will have to be reviewed in order to exclude gender discrimination among customers.  Read more...

As a year, 2011 has been one of the worst on record for weather-related claims. There were fierce ice storms starting the year, followed by some of the worst tornadoes and hurricanes we’ve ever seen. This October, records have been broken with a major snowstorm hitting the northeastern states. In some areas, power has been out for more than two weeks as overstretched power companies struggle to repair utility wires brought down by trees and ice. Of all the states, Connecticut is the hardest hit with more than 835,000 outages. This is not a direct criticism of the power companies. Each company is responsible for the maintenance of thousands of miles of wire. Inevitably, trees grow close to the wires and it’s not always economically convenient to trim back all the threatening branches. So, when snow turns to ice, the weight can bring down young and old trees alike. Cutting and clearing the trees and then restringing the wires takes time even in perfect working conditions. As the winter conditions persist, delays are inevitable. The decision of Connecticut’s Governor Dannel P. Malloy to hold an inquiry into the slow response is pure politics. Equally, the suggestion the state might take action through the courts is unlikely. Actually proving malfeasance by the power companies will be difficult.

It’s going to take weeks before we have a clear idea of the extent of the losses. No business can confidently carry a loss of production or sales lasting more than one week let alone two. In some cases where the raw materials are perishable, the losses have been two-fold, e.g. food retailers, restaurants, and food processing and manufacturing companies. It’s ironic food that should be kept chilled or frozen can be lost even though the weather remains cold but, with hygiene concerns, businesses cannot take food out of refrigerators and bury it in the snow. The only companies that see a positive benefit are businesses that can clear the fallen trees and keep the roads clear. To give you a clue as to the scale of the losses, the claims are already greater than those following Hurricane Irene which dumped vast amounts of water on the Northeast.  Read more...

When employers were still mostly human, they offered their employees a range of benefits in addition to pay. One of the more common add-ons was a group life plan. The general idea was to provide for the employees’ welfare through health, retirement and life cover, and so encourage them to greater effort. The advantage from the employer’s point of view was that it was usually cheaper to buy the various benefits in bulk than to add pay sufficient for the employees to buy as individuals. Since pay was low, it avoided struggles for the employees to buy their own benefits. Everyone was happy with this arrangement. As we move toward the end of the last century, this philosophy was retained in the public sector, but more greedy capitalists began chipping away at the benefits. As unemployment rose, there was always a good supply of labor queuing up for every job advertised. If benefits were cut and employees left, there were always people willing to take on the work. This allowed employers in the private sector to bank more profit for themselves, leaving employees held in their posts by the fear they would be unable to find alternative jobs if they left.

The latest survey finds nearly one-quarter of all families relies on group insurance for life benefits. Most of these individuals are either in public service or they are relatively senior management and above. Research shows the actual value of these policies is inadequate to meet most families’ needs. The policies are bought with an eye to the cheapness of the premium rates for the employer rather than for the quality of the payout for the beneficiaries. The average plan offers a benefit equivalent to one or two times the annual pay of the individual. The standard in an individual policy is to provide between five and seven years of pay. A further problem is these plans are often not transferrable so, if you leave your current job, voluntarily or not, the plan is unlikely to follow you.  Read more...