The whole thing about pricing on gender was an utter farce - Euro Court Human Rights once again makes a call on something they seem to have little understanding of. If this is a precedent then surely young people can claim ageism, people in Manchester can claim locationism and people with sports cars can claim they are discriminated against because of the car they drive.
I have also seen this effect of peoples cars being hit, not their fault, claiming off another the other insurance and then seeing their premiums go up. As people have alluded to, the models used in Insurance I suspect are poor and biased towards the insuring company. Every time I hear people who have no statistical background quoting stats I cringe 'you are more likely to have an accident if you are in one not of your fault so premiums go up' what sort of stat are we looking at here? Are we looking at big numbers such as 500 times more likely or are we looking at something like for every 10 people that havent had a no fault claim that have an accident we see 11 people who have had a no fault accident then having an accident? Both qualify the same statement but both massively different.
The funny thing is that people seem to think because you compare two numbers like that its, comparable, which it isnt unless you do some massive driver analysis, straight correlations are usually pretty pointless, the amount of intercorrelation going on is immense. 'Men are more likely to have an accident than woman' how many times do I hear that completely ridiculous statement by so called experts...what if the woman was a 17 year old alcoholic from moss side driving a pagani zonda and the guy a 50 year old school teacher from Berkshire driving a Toyota Prius. Unless they have compared comparable data across all attributes at all levels ie 17 year old alcoholic moss side lady in a zonda vs the same but male, there is massive scope for error.
/end rant