DEC-S2003-116 Full Case Report

Jim Ross (represented by the Equality Authority) V Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc (represented by Patrick F O'Reilly & Co, Solicitors )

1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a complaint by Mr Jim Ross that he was discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, by Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance plc. The complainant maintains that he was discriminated against on the age ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(f) of the Equal Status Act 2000 in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public contrary to Section 5(1) of the Act.

2. Summary of the Complainant's Case
2.1 This dispute concerns a complaint by Jim Ross that he sought a car insurance quotation from Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc by telephone on 9 January 2001 but was refused a quotation because of his age (77)

3.. Summary of Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondents totally reject that they operate a discriminatory policy on the grounds of age. They acknowledge that Mr Ross was refused a quotation but argue that the refusal was not unlawful as it falls within an exception provided under the Equal Status Act, where the difference in the treatment of persons in relation to insurance policies is not deemed to be discriminatory if "it is effected by reference to actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or other relevant underwriting or commercial factors, and is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors."

4 Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
4.1 This complaint was referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Act 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and under the Equal Status Act 2000, the Director has delegated the complaint to myself, Brian O'Byrne, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

5.1 Basis for Complainant's Case

• Mr Jim Ross was born on 4 July 1923
• In 2000, he purchased a new car. However, when he went to renew his insurance
  premium, his existing insurance company quoted him a premium which, in his opinion, was exorbitant.
• As a result, he decided to "shop around" for a better insurance deal
• On 9 January 2001, he phoned the Royal & Sun Alliance for a quotation
• At the outset, the staff member asked him for his name, address and age
• When he told the staff member that he was 77 years of age, he was informed that the company did not quote for new business for people over 70
• Although he had a 7 year "No Claims Bonus" at the time, he was not asked about it
• Mr Ross informed the staff member that he had previously been an agent for the Royal
• Insurance Company up until his retirement but this did not influence the decision

Evidence of Ms Dorothea Dowling, Chairperson, Motor Insurance Advisory Board

• Ms Dowling has been on the MIAB board since 1998
• The MIAB was asked in 1998 to monitor developments in motor insurance costs and to provide analysis of the factors influencing changes in motor insurance premium rates, following complaints of anti-competitive practices in the industry
• Following a survey in early 2001, the MIAB wrote to 5 of the 26 licensed insurers who appeared not to be cooperating with the Declined Cases Agreement's requirement that "No proposer is to be refused a quotation on the basis of age"
• In a written responce to the MIAB's letter, the RSA stated "in respect of older drivers ...... we do not quote unless there is a 5 year bonus in place".
• In light of the above statement to the MIAB, Ms Dowling said that she was astonished to hear subsequently that the complainant, Mr Ross, had been refused a quote by the RSA.
• Ms Dowling considers that the Declined Cases Agreements is a viable method of providing insurance cover and explained that, under the system, the only people likely not to get insurance are those with previous convictions or those suffering from specific disabilities

Declined Cases Agreements
During the course of the Hearings, reference was made to the Declined Cases Agreements (DCA) of June 1981 which established a Declined Cases Committee,consisting of representatives from the insurance industry. It was explained that the DCAs were designed to spread the burden of risk equally amongst insurance companies. Under the Agreements, insurers accepted in principle the obligation upon them to afford proper facilities to the insuring public and it was agreed that insurers would not decline to provide insurance to individual proposers who had approached at least five insurers and had not been able to obtain insurance.
To effect this Agreement, a Declined Cases Committee was established for the purposes of administering the Agreement. The Committee had a number of powers including the power to nominate companies, on a rota basis, to provide insurance and, in cases where the Committee formed the opinion that premiums or terms were excessive, to indicate the maximum premium to be imposed

Evidence of Mr Cyril Connolly, Statistician and Member of the MIAB

• Mr Connolly was heavily involved in preparing the Motor Insurance Advisory Board's Report on the Motor Insurance Industry in 2002
• He had specific responsibility for the statistical data contained therein and he is very familiar with statistics, trends and issues pertaining to the motor insurance industry
• Mr Connolly has examined the RSA Statistical Reports provided for the 1994- 1997 years and the 1999 year and came to the conclusion that the data could notbe relied upon for informative conclusions as "there was something wrong with the mechanism used to produce data".
• He came to this conclusion having found a number of inconsistencies in the data itself and the manner by which results were obtained
• Mr Connolly stated that, from his examination of the statistics, the over-70s data appeared to be consistent with the average for the whole portfolio.
• He also said that he could find no evidence in the RSA accident statistics to show that there was more volatility in the over 70's age category

5.2 Respondents' Evidence
Evidence of Mr Philip Behan, RSA Pricing and Development Manager

• Mr Behan was employed as Underwriting Manager with Sun Alliance from 1988 up until the company's merger with Royal Insurance in 1996. He since became Pricing and Development Manager with the merged company, Royal and Sun Alliance.
• In 1992, Mr Behan undertook a study of Sun Alliance's Irish market accident statistics for the period 1985 to 1992, with a view towards formulating new age groups for quotation purposes based on the risk factors involved.
• His 1992 analysis of the ages of those involved in accidents, indicated that the larger claims tended to involve clients at the extreme ends of the age spectrum.
• Mr Behan explained that injury claims were noticeably higher at the younger and older ends of the scale
• Mr Behan said that it was clear from his analysis that it would be imprudent to continue to take on new business from anyone over 70 years of age. Even if older clients were taken on at a higher premium, he considered that this could lead to an imbalance of risks.
• Based on his analysis, Mr Behan submitted a report to Senior Management recommending that the practice of offering quotations to new customers over 70 be reviewed.
• On the basis of his recommendation, the company decided in 1992 to stop taking on new business from anyone over 70 years of age. This decision did not, however, affect existing clients who continued to receive cover on reaching 70 years of age.
• Mr Behan explained that Sun Alliance had a high level of older drivers on its books at the time. This situation had arisen from a campaign which the company had run in 1985 to attract experienced drivers in the 35 to 75 age category.
• At the Hearing, Mr Behan said that the statistics on which he made his report in 1992 were no longer available but that he could provide statistics from 1994 which, he maintained, closely mirrored the 1985 to 1992 figures.
• The decision to restrict insurance to under 70's was reviewed annually by the company since 1992 and this practice continued after Royal Insurance merged with Sun Alliance in 1996
• Mr Behan stated that the annual review of statistics throughout the 1990s affirmed the 1992 decision
• In October 2000, a further statistical report was prepared by Mr Behan based on actuarial evidence and statistics from the company's Irish records for 1999, which, he claimed, again showed that insurance claim costs accelerated in line with age in the over 70's bracket
• Mr Behan said that this report reaffirmed the 1992 decision not to seek new business from people over 70
• Mr Behan stated that it was the October 2000 review, that grounded the decision to refuse Mr Ross a quotation in January 2001. This review was based on the company's statistical data from the Irish market for the 1999 year.
• The RSA was only able to compile its report based on data from 1999 as the data from 1997 and 1998 was not fully available on computer. As a result, it was not used as it was considered somewhat unreliable
• In 2003, a further actuarial review was carried out which again affirmed the 1992 decision and the emerging figures in 2003 also supported the 2000 assessment
• In compiling his reports over the years, Mr Behan said that he also took into account other factors such as market forces and the situation in other countries. In this regard, he regularly liaised with colleagues working abroad with a view to comparing practices and trends.
• In an effort to emphasise the difficulties experienced by risk assessors, Mr Behan explained that nowadays, it can take 4 years to establish the true outcome of a claim
• In support of their case, the RSA introduced in evidence RSA Statistical Reports for period 1994-1997, for October 2000 and for April 2003. However, on close inspection at the Hearing on 19 May 2003, it was established that some of the figures in the reports for the 1994-1997 years simply "did not add up".
• Having examined the figures in question, Mr Behan acknowledged at the Hearing that some of the numerical calculations in the reports (which appeared to have been computer generated) were not accurate but he was unable to offer an explanation for this.
• In early 2003, the RSA began to use a new statistical software package into which the 1999 data was entered for comparison purposes. The ensuing comparison between the 2000 and 2003 analysis of the same data showed significant divergencies in the results obtained in certain categories
• On the basis of the 2003 analysis, Mr Behan acknowledged that the 2000 Statistical Report may have been based, to some degree, on inaccurate information leading to the performance of older drivers being viewed in a different light under some headings when compared with the 2003 analysis
• Mr Behan insisted, however, that the 2003 figures would not have changed his view as to whether new business from over 70's should be taken on by the company
• Mr Behan stressed also that his function was to conduct risk assessments on the basis of the most accurate and up-to-date information available to him at the time and insisted that his assessments over the past ten years had all been done on this basis
• While accepting that the RSA reports contained some errors, Mr Behan insisted that his analysis was sound and based on solid underwriting and commercial factors and he stood over his recommendation to the RSA not to accept new over-70's business
• The RSA is a small insurance company and cannot afford to take blows from a volatile sector of the insurance market.
• The RSA already has a higher proportion of over 70 drivers on its books than most other insurance companies

Evidence of Mr Rigby, Deputy General Manager of RSA in 1999

• Mr Rigby was the Deputy General manager of RSA during the 1990s until he retired in 1999
• During this time the RSA prepared annual statistical packages and carried out quarterly business reviews
• RSA relied on Philip Behan's reports for underwriting purposes
• Mr Rigby often regularly discussed Mr Behan's draft reports with him before they were finalised
• It was Mr Rigby's function to evaluate the risk involved in continuing to offer cover to anyone over 70
• He said that it was clear in the early 1990s that the provision of insurance cover to older clients was demonstrably unprofitable and that, as time progressed, there was increased deterioration in profit levels
• Mr Rigby acknowledged that the RSA had "burned its fingers" in the mature market in the 1980s and fully supported the decision in 1992 to re-evaluate its position with regard to its over-70s custom
• When reference was made to the Declined Cases Agreement, Mr Rigby stated that he had no recollection of the RSA ever been required to provide insurance to someone over 70 under the terms of that Agreement.

Evidence of Mr Ken Keenan, Manager, Personal Financial Services

• Mr Keenan took over responsibility for the RSA's underwriting of the private motor business in November 2000
• On his arrival he carried out an extensive analysis of Mr Behan's October 2000 report and satisfied himself that Mr Behan's report was based on the best statistical evidence available and that Mr Behan was correct in recommending continuance of the RSA's over 70s policy
• Mr Keenan believed that, in not providing insurance for new over 70's business, the company's existing over 70's customers benefited from lower insurance rates brought about by the RSA's ability to contain exposure in this volatile segment of the market.
• When his attention was drawn to the quotation in the MIAB Report from a RSA letter stating that "in respect of older drivers ...... we do not quote unless there is a 5 year bonus in place", Mr Keenan said that he had not known about that letter but acknowledged that it did give a misleading impression about the RSA's willingness to quote for new "over 70's" business.

Evidence of Mr David O'Connor. Tillinghast, Actuarial Consultants

• Mr O'Connor is an Expert Risk Assessor with 30 years experience in the insurance business
• Mr O'Connor believes that it is essential for insurance companies to carefully select risks because of the high volatility in the sector and recommends that companies restrict over-exposure in volatile sectors
• Mr O'Connor would advise strongly against an insurance company taking on a particular risk group as it goes against the basic principle of diversification
• It is clear from his own research and experience that greater risks exist at the extreme ends of the age bands

Mr Denis Bergin, Retired Insurance Expert

• Mr Bergin was involved in insurance underwriting since 1951
• He has examined the RSA data that is available and found it very thorough and impressive
• He has also been impressed with the risk management decisions made by RSA over the years

6 Matters for Consideration
6.1 Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 states that discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds specified in the Act, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated. Section 3(2)(f) of the Act specifies the age ground as one of the grounds covered by the Act. Under Section 5(1) of the Act it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual in the provision of a service which is generally available to the public. In this particular instance, the complainant claims that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his age contrary to Sections 3(1), 3(2)(f) and 5(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 in the treatment he received in being refused an insurance quotation by Royal and Sun Alliance on 9 January 2001. I, therefore, must decide whether the treatment afforded the complainant in being refused an insurance quotation constituted discrimination under the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000.

6.2 Another matter to be considered is the respondents argument that the Equal Status Act 2000 provides an exemption for insurance companies under Section 5(2)(d) where a decision to treat people differently is effected by actuarial or statistical data. The respondents claim that they are entitled under Section 5(2)(d) to treat people of different ages differently in relation to insurance policies where the treatment is "effected by reference to actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or other relevant underwriting or commercial factors, and is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors" The respondents argue that this provision in Section 5(2)(d) is "an exemption" from the provisions of Section 5(1) which prohibits discrimination. The complainant, for his part, maintains that the refusal was not consistent with statistical or actuarial data but was a decision imposed arbitrarily on people over 70 years of age.

7 Conclusions of the Equality Officer
7.1 Prima facie case
At the outset, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. There are three key elements which need to be established to show that a prima facie case exists. These are:
(a) Membership of a discriminatory ground (e.g. the age ground)
(b) Evidence of specific treatment by the respondent
(c) Evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone, not covered by that ground, would have received in similar circumstances.
If and when those elements are established, the burden of proof shifts, meaning that the difference in treatment is assumed to be discriminatory on the relevant ground. In such cases the claimant does not need to prove that there is a link between the difference and the membership of the ground, instead the respondent has to prove that there is not.

7.2 In considering the approach to be taken with regard to the shifting of the burden of proof, I have been guided by the manner in which this issue has been dealt with previously at Labour Court, High Court and Supreme Court level. In this regard, it is important to note that a shift in the burden of proof was applied as a matter of law in Irish discrimination cases long before European Community law developed the idea, so this practice is not dependent on EC discrimination law applying in the context of the Equal Status Act 2000.

7.3 Both the Labour Court and Equality Officers applied the practice of shifting the burden of proof in discrimination cases, long before any European Community caselaw required them to do so. This practice was adopted as far back as 1983 (Bailieborough Community School v Carroll, DEE 4/1983 Labour Court) and 1986 ( Dublin Corporation vGibney, EE 5/1986 Equality Officer), and was a consistent practice across a spectrum of cases (see Curtin, Irish Employment Equality Law, 1989 p. 222 et seq.) European Court of Justice caselaw did not address the issue of the shift in the burden of proof for the first time till Danfoss (Case no C-109/88, 1989 ) and Enderby (Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Sec of State for Health, C-127/92, 1993 ). The shift in the burden of proof would, therefore, seem to have been an indigenous development in Irish discrimination law, which was in advance of Community law. The practice of shifting the burden of proof in discrimination cases, although this time following European Community caselaw, was also applied in very clear terms by the Supreme Court in Nathan v Bailey Gibson 1998 2 IR 162 and by the High Court in Conlon v University of Limerick 1999 2 ILRM 131. . While these were both indirect discrimination cases, it seems that the principle should by logical extension apply to direct discrimination cases if it applies to indirect discrimination cases.

7.4 The burden of proof issue has more recently been addressed in Irish caselaw in a 2003 "age" case under the new equality legislation ( O'Mahony and others V The Revenue Commissioners (Labour Court Determination No. EDA 033). In that case, which was taken under the Employment Equality Act 1998, the Labour Court, in applying the burden of proof test, stated that "the Court must consider if the complainants have established the primary facts on which they place reliance in furtherance of the complaint of discrimination. If those facts are established the Court must then consider if they are of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. If that evidential burden is not discharged the complainant cannot succeed. If that burden is discharged it then becomes a matter for the respondent to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the complainant's age was not a factor that influenced their exclusion from the panel." On the basis of the foregoing, I can see no obvious reason why the principle of shifting the burden of proof should not be extended to complaints arising under the Equal Status Act 2000 on any of the new grounds.

7.5 With regard to (a) above in paragraph 7.1, the complainant has satisfied me that he was over 70 years of age when he was refused an insurance quotation by the Royal and Sun Alliance. In relation to (b), the respondents accept that the complainant was refused a quotation. To determine whether a prima facie case exists, I must, therefore, consider whether the treatment afforded the complainant was less favourable than the treatment a person of a different age would have received, in similar circumstances.

7.6 Section 5(2)(d) of the Equal Status Act 2000 The respondents argue in this case that the Equal Status Act 2000 provides an exemption for insurance companies under Section 5(2)(d) and that the RSA's refusal to provide Mr Ross with a quotation was covered by this exemption. Section 5(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 states: "A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public." Section 5(2)(d) of the Equal Status Act 2000 states: "Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of - (d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment -
(i) is effected by reference to
(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or
(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors, and
(ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors"

7.7 Therefore, in order to show that they are covered by the Section 5(2)(d) exemption, I consider that the respondents must show that the difference in treatment afforded Mr Ross was (1) "effected by reference to actuarial or statistical data" which was "obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely" AND "is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors" OR (2 "is effected by reference to other relevant underwriting or commercial factors" AND "is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors" . In order to fall within the Section 5(2)(d) exemption, I consider that the respondents must show that they fully satisfy either test (1) or test (2) above.

7.8 In regard to test (1) above, the respondents maintain that they are covered by the Section 5(2) exemption in this case, as Mr Philip Behan utilised the latest and most accurate information available to him at the time, in recommending to the RSA, from 1992 onwards, that the company should cease to quote for new business in the over-70's age bracket. While acknowledging that there may have been some inaccuracies in the data used over the years, the respondents maintain that Mr Behan acted in a professional manner at all times. In deliberating on the evidence before me, I have no reason to doubt that Mr Behan acted in an entirely professional manner in conducting his reviews and that every effort was made, on each occasion, to ensure the integrity of the statistics used. I am, therefore, satisfied that Mr Behan's findings complied with the first part of test (1) in that they were "effected by reference to actuarial or statistical data". This then raises the question as to whether the actuarial or statistical data used between 1992 and 1999 came from "a source on which it is reasonable to rely". In this regard, I note that the source and the integrity of the statistics have now been called into question with the admission that (a) the 1992 figures are no longer available, (b) that there were "black holes" in respect of periods between 1992 and 1998 where the relevant data relied on was incomplete or is no longer available and (c) that the 1999 figures now show different outcomes when processed through a different software package. On the basis of this information, I find that there is insufficient evidence before me to convince me that the actuarial or statistical data, which guided the respondent's over-70s policy, "was obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely" or that their decision was "reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors". Accordingly, I consider that the respondents have not fully satisfied the test at (1) above.

7.9 With regard to the test at (2) above, the respondents have identified a number of underwriting and commercial factors which influenced their policy decision on over-70s, such as the older age profile of the company's customers compared to other insurers, their small share of the motor insurance market and the need for averaging-out risks. Section 5(2)(d) states, however, that where the treatment is effected by reference to other relevant underwriting or commercial factors that it must also be "reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors". In my opinion, there are many other considerations, apart from those identified above, that should be taken into account when assessing a person's suitability for insurance cover. These considerations include, among others, the person's health, their driving experience, their previous claims history and the condition/age of their car. These to me are "other relevant factors" that should be taken into account in making such decisions. Another "relevant underwriting or commercial factor" which I consider needs to be taken into account is the fact that insurance companies have signed up to the Declined Cases Agreement which specifically states that "No Insurer shall decline a risk on the grounds of age of driver alone". In the case before me, it is clear that the RSA does not take into account all of the relevant factors referred to above nor does it address the individuality of each request for a quotation. Instead, the RSA applies an "across the board" policy of refusing quotations to persons over 70 years of age, with no regard for a person's particular circumstances or the company's own obligations under the Declined Cases Agreement. For these reasons, I find that I cannot accept that the company's policy "is reasonable having regard to ... other relevant factors". Accordingly, I find that the respondents have also failed to satisfy the test at (2) above and I have concluded that their over-70s policy does not fall within the exemption provided for under Section 5(2)(d) of the Equal Status Act 2000.

7.10 In their submission, the respondents claim that the "over 70s" are a very volatile segment of the market and that, if the respondent had to substantially increase its exposure to this age group, from taking on new business, this would have an adverse impact on their overall capital allocation and also increase the cost of reinsurance. They also claim that, as a small motor insurer, attracting a large volume of business in the 71 plus age group would risk threatening its viability. In addition, they maintain that increased exposure in this market would threaten the continuation of cover for existing customers who would be facing a very large premium increase. They argue, therefore, that by not accepting new business in this age group, the respondent can control its exposure. Clearly there is some substance in the respondent's claim that a large increase in exposure in the over 70s market could be damaging to business. Whether this increase is likely to materialise, however, if the respondents opened their books to new business in the over 70s market, is a matter which I consider needs to be examined. In this regard, I note that I have little or no evidence before me which attempts to quantify the number of "floating" over 70 drivers who are seeking to change insurers. The respondents themselves have said that the industry practice has traditionally been to "look after your old customers" and not to compete for new business in this area . I also note that the respondents have given no indication as to the number of customers they have refused over the years based on their "no over 70s" policy nor have they tried to identify the volume of business that is likely to be generated if they were to begin accepting new over 70s business. On this point, I also note that, in referring to the Declined Cases Agreement, the respondents own witness, Mr Rigby, has stated that, to his knowledge, the Declined Cases Committee have never referred a new over-70s customer back to the RSA for the provision of insurance.On the basis of the above, I find that I have little or no evidence to support the view that there is a large market of "floating" over 70s customers out there who are seeking to change insurer. Indeed, Mr Rigby's evidence would seem to suggest the contrary, that the number of such customers are few and far between. I, therefore, find that there is insufficient evidence before me to support the respondents' claim that any change in its over-70s policy would expose the company to a risk which was likely to threaten its viability and lead to large premium increases for existing customers.

7.11 Notwithstanding the above findings, it is clear that reliable actuarial and statistical data is essential to the insurance industry in conducting risk assessment and I note that the data provided by the respondents, despite its flaws, does indicate that higher claim costs are more likely to arise from accidents involving elderly drivers than those involving middle-aged drivers. On this basis, I consider that there is a case to be made for a company quoting proportionately higher premiums to older drivers, based on the results of their actuarial reviews. What cannot be accepted is the complete refusal of a quotation based solely on a person's age.

7.12 During the course of the Hearings, much analysis took place of the statistical and actuarial data used by Mr Behan in the period 1992 to 2000. In analysing the statistical data at the two Hearings, the parties entered into a long and indepth debate over the detail contained in the reports. Comparisons were drawn between different reports and questions were raised about loss ratios, burning costs, average costs etc. During the course of this debate, great emphasis was placed on the commercially sensitive nature of the statistical data under discussion and there was general agreement amongst all present that it would be prudent if the specific detail of the data under consideration was not included in the Equality Officer's Decision. For this reason, specific details of the statistical evidence submitted by the respondents and considered at the Hearings has been omitted from this decision.

7.12 I find that a prima facie case of discrimination on the age ground has been established by the complainant, resulting in the burden of proof shifting to the respondents. I also find that the respondents have failed to rebut the allegation.

8 Decision
8.1 I find that the respondents, in not being able to produce full details of the actuarial or statistical data that had guided their "over-70s" policy, have failed to satisfy me that the data came "from a source on which it was reasonable to rely". I also find that that the respondents' "over 70s" policy was not "reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors" as it did not take all relevant factors into account in considering individual requests but simply applied an "across the board" policy of refusing quotations to persons over 70 years of age. Accordingly, I find that the respondents are not covered by the exemption provided for under Section 5(2)(d) of the Act.

8.2 I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of his age contrary to Sections 3(1), 3(2)(f) and 5(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 in relation to the treatment he received in being refused a motor insurance quotation by Royal and Sun Alliance on 9 January 2001. I also find that the respondents have failed to rebut the allegation.

8.3 In considering the level of redress that is most appropriate, I am mindful of the following:

• More than most, the RSA has reason to want to reduce the number of older customers on its books as the company already has a higher proportion of over 70 drivers than other companies, as a result of its campaign in the 1980's to attract more mature drivers.
• It is clear that the RSA does not completely discriminate against people over 70, as its policy is to continue to insure its existing customers when they turn 70.
• As matters stand, the Declined Cases Agreement provides insurance seekers with a form of "safety net" in that some insurance company will eventually be required to offer them insurance. In the knowledge that this system is in place, it is possible that some insurance companies may not fully comprehend the discriminatory implications of refusing a quotation on the grounds of age.

8.3 As I have found that discrimination has occurred in this instance, I order that the Royal and Sun Alliance pay the complainant the sum of €2000 (roughly the cost equivalent to Mr Ross of three years insurance) for the loss of amenity suffered. 8.4 In light of this Decision, I would also suggest that the RSA and other insurance companies review any existing practices that are still in place where an individual is refused a quotation simply on the grounds of his/her age.

Brian O'Byrne
Equality Officer
19 September 2003