kjm@brl-tgr.ARPA (Kelly J. McGlothlin ) (10/19/84)
[from I-don't-know-who] > In the state of Wisconsin (at least) a friend of mine applied for a loan. > The lending institution insisted on knowing the income etc. > My friend is a professional musician and the loan was for a vehicle (car) > for her to use to carry her instruments and herself to and from work. > The loan was granted but the requirement for her husbands income had to > be filled first. > The car was purchased and titled in her name but when it came time > to get insurance she was placed in a high risk group merely because her > husband was in a high risk group, her driving record for the past 10 > years had not even a parking ticket on it . [from David] >If this is actually true she could always go to another insurance company. >I have never heard of an ins. co. raising a spouses rate just because the >other spouse has a bad driving record when the car is in her name. Are >you sure of all your facts? If so, what is the purpose of posting the >above letter, to show all ins. co. are unfair? David * * ^ \_/ [from me, Marie Carey] I am sure the first person above is aware of all of her/his facts. And yes, I believe not all, but some insurance companies *are* unfair. This same thing has happened to myself and my husband and just recently, to a female friend of mine. She bought a brand new car recently and the car is titled and registered in her name. Yet, because her husband has a bad driving record, her insurance rates are high. And this is just because (said the insurance company) that her husband lives in the same residence as herself and therefore they must charge her higher rates because of his bad driving record *because* they don't know if he is ever going to be driving the car or not. Even though she told them that the car is titled and registered in her name and her husband would not be driving her car. He has his own. But, the insurance company wouldn't buy it. I was sitting right there when they told her this. Now, tell me, what is NOT unfair about that?! I think that probably not all insurance companies are doing this, but the ones that are, are getting rich and that sucks. This woman also tried other ins. companies, but they all said the same thing and so she finally went with the company that had the lowest all-around rates, even though she still must be in the high risk rate group. It really stinks that woman have to pay higher rates just because their husbands have rotten driving records. Why the h*ll go out and try to be independent and buy your own car or your own house if it is all going to come down to what your husband earns or what your husband's driving record is like? That (to me) is almost a good enough reason to not get married at all. Marie Carey ...seismo!carey
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/20/84)
I would like to see some evidence that insurance companies would NOT penalize a husband for his wife's bad driving record. My experience with them suggests that they would. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mjs@rabbit.UUCP (M. J. Shannon, Jr.) (10/21/84)
Yes, but what insurance company would ASK a husband about his wife's
driving record? My bet: none.
--
Marty Shannon
UUCP: {alice,rabbit,research}!mjs
(rabbit is soon to die. Does this mean alice is pregnant? Yup!)
Phone: 201-582-3199gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (10/22/84)
>It really stinks that woman have to pay higher rates just because >their husbands have rotten driving records. It would stink just as much if a man got stuck with a higher rate because his wife had a rotten driving record. On the opposite side of the coin -- I've been involved in 3 auto accidents (minor ones) in the last four years, 2 of them within 5 days of each other. Before and after these accidents my insurance was still lower than my husband's. Most insurance companies take more than driving record into account in setting premiums. Age, type of car (e.g. sports car vs. sedan), and, believe it or not, marital status, play a big part in determining premiums. Of course, I've never bought auto insurance anywhere but in California. It may be quite different elsewhere. >Why the h*ll go out >and try to be independent and buy your own car or your own house >if it is all going to come down to what your husband earns or >what your husband's driving record is like? That (to me) is almost >a good enough reason to not get married at all. > >Marie Carey >...seismo!carey I really do empathize with your frustration. I go through phases where it is difficult not to see sexism as the cause of certain kinds of problems. Just remember that if we don't all get out there and keep trying, these things will never change. Gail Bayley Hanrahan {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail Calma Company, San Diego
hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/22/84)
It really sounds unfair to charge the wife higher rates because of her husband's bad record. When I had teenagers, I was not charged higher rates because I certified that they would not be driving the car. The risk was that if they drove the car and had an accident, I would not be covered unless I claimed that the car was driven without my permission. The driver could then of course be charged with theft.
hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/22/84)
Insurance applications ask for the driver's record of all household redidents with driver licences. There is also no advantage from a liability point of view to having a car registered in either or both names, my lawyer tells me.
syslab@ihuxn.UUCP (10/23/84)
As I recall the last time I applied for car insurance the form did ask for the names of all liscensed drivers in the household. This as I was told was specifically to determine the rates based on the driving records of those who might be driving the vehicle. Simply omitting any of this information would (should the insurance co. discover the omission) result in revoling and or canceling the policy. At the same time many insurance agents/brokers I am aquainted with have told me that rarely is any action taken if a wife has a bad record on the road if the husband states that the vehicle is for his use only. The tacit assumption is that a husband can enforce a ban on his wifes use of a vehicle while a wife either can not or will not do the same ( this does not make the assumption true only that it is an ASS - U - ME d condition of family living. Jeanette Zobjeck ihuxq!zubbie
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (10/27/84)
>It really stinks that woman have to pay higher rates just because >their husbands have rotten driving records. >Why the h*ll go out >and try to be independent and buy your own car or your own house >if it is all going to come down to what your husband earns or >what your husband's driving record is like? That (to me) is almost >a good enough reason to not get married at all. > >Marie Carey >...seismo!carey >> I really do empathize with your frustration. I go through >> phases where it is difficult not to see sexism as the cause of >> certain kinds of problems. Just remember that if we don't all >> get out there and keep trying, these things will never change. >> >> Gail Bayley Hanrahan >> {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail >> Calma Company, San Diego My question is not whether or not these practices are fair but; are they sexist? Is it sexist to [1;5m sometimes [m consider a married couple as a unit? Again the question is; are these practices sexist? (not ; are these pratices wrong?) Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (11/09/84)
<<< Another case where what the Insurance co wants to sell is not what you need to buy. The real kicker is that they will charge extra for the husbands record on both the husbands and wifes cars. Even if he drives both cars he certainly can't drive more than one at a time. Its like if a single person is the sole driver of two cars. You wind up paying full insurance for one car thats always parked. I'd shop around until I found a company that sells what I need. I think that your getting the standard answers instead of a policy that you need. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john