Geoffrey O'Donoghue V Hibernian General Insurance (Represented by Lyndon McCann SC instructed by A & L Goodbody Solicitors)
Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
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 this complaint to me Mary O'Callaghan, 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. The hearing of the case took place over two successive days on 22nd and 23rd of July 2004.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by the complainant Mr. Geoffrey O'Donoghue that he was discriminated against on the ground of age when he sought two insurance quotations using two different ages on the Hibernian Insurance Web based on-line motor insurance quotation and proposal facility on 27th November 2002. Mr. O'Donoghue alleges that the treatment he received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (f) [the age ground] of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2004.
1.2 The respondent maintains that the quotations offered to the complainant reflect the element of risk which was calculated through the use of their actuarial modelling system, a statistical model which is in common use throughout the insurance industry. They maintain that any other difference that is apparent in the quotations arose from commercial factors which the company would apply in order to maintain competitiveness in various sectors of the insurance market.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Case
2.1 The complainant who was 31 years of age in November 2002 said that as the time for the renewal of his motor insurance was approaching he utilised the Hibernian Direct Online facility to get a motor insurance quotation. He said that he decided to input the quotation request twice with just one variable changed between the two quotation enquiries. The only variable which changed between the two quotations was that of age. While he inputted his actual age of 31 years in one application he used the age of 41 years in the other, thus requesting a quotation based on he being 10 years older, all other factors being equal. The resulting quotes showed a difference of 21% in the premiums being charged by the company, the lower quotation being for the older proposer. The quotations offered were €799.71 for Mr. O'Donoghue at the age of 31 years and €658.79 for Mr. O'Donoghue at the age of 41 years. He said that he thought that the difference between the two quotes was excessively wide. He subsequently was given a lower quotation from another insurer (named) and took out a policy with that company. Initially he said that he did not consider discrimination as the cause of the difference quoted by Hibernian. He decided to check further for an explanation for the difference including writing a letter to the respondent company. The response to this letter, issued on 9th January 2003 informed him that "Hibernian is satisfied that in your particular case on the basis of our own confidential actuarial and statistical data and our reasonable underwriting factors our decision is justified within the terms of Section 5(2)(d) of the Equal Status Act, 2000."
2.2 The complainant said that upon receiving the quotations from the insurance company he consulted the report of the Motor Insurance Advisory Board (MIAB) to assess whether the different amounts being quoted could be explained by the analysis in that report. The Motor Insurance Advisory Board was reconstituted under the remit of the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment in 1998 and reported to the Minister of State at that Department in March 2002. The report contains an analysis of Motor Insurance data drawn from across the insurance industry in Ireland. Included in the analysis are tables presented, which the complainant submitted outline the risk attaching to drivers of different age groups for both Comprehensive and Third Party Fire and Theft insurance. The complainant submitted tables from the report which he highlighted as showing that if there was a greater risk attaching to the different age groups, which he submitted in his quotation requests, that difference would favour a lower quotation for Mr. O'Donoghue at 31 years of age rather than that for Mr. O'Donoghue at 41 years of age, as the claims cost attaching to the younger policy holder was shown to be lower. Among the tables and graphs drawn from the report he submitted a table showing that the claim cost to the insurer was less for the younger driver. He said that this information led him to the suspicion that the difference in his quotes from Hibernian Direct represents discrimination on the ground of age on the part of the insurance company. He said that he had written to the company on foot of this information and received a response which he did not consider a satisfactory response to his queries.
2.3 Mr. O'Donoghue said that he was relying on the MIAB data in support of his case of discrimination against the respondent Hibernian General Insurance particularly in the absence of other data which might support his case. He maintained that he would require access to the entire Hibernian SQL database if he were to fully assess the basis for his quotes. He maintained that the insurance company in setting its premium rates discriminated against younger drivers.
2.4 In response to the respondent's case, the complainant asserted that the actuarial model used by the insurance company in determining the risk associated with different driver characteristics (GLM) made it difficult for him to prove discrimination as he stated that this method could not be used to prove discrimination. The complainant said that the report submitted by the respondent insurance company was misleading and painted a picture that favoured the respondent's case. He submitted at the hearing that a more recent enquiry on the insurance company's Web based system, using the same ages as in the November 2002 quotations, produced quotations with just a 14% difference in premiums quoted between the two ages, compared with the 21% difference which was between the quotations received in November 2002.
2.5 The complainant said that in providing the evidence of the two quotes received though Hibernian's on-line direct quote system, he had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the age ground which the respondent would have to rebut if his claim of discrimination against the insurance company was to fail.
3. Summary of the Respondents Case
3.1 The respondent is a motor and general insurance provider in the Irish market and is a company in the AVIVA group of companies. The respondent indicated that it was relying on Section 5 (2) (d) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 in its defence. 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" In an initial response to this complaint the company commissioned independent actuarial consultants to examine the MIAB data submitted by the complainant and this was presented in a report submitted to the Tribunal and copied to the complainant in advance of the hearing of this case. This report was prepared for the respondent by Mr David O'Connor of Tillinghast-Towers Perrin who appeared as a witness for the respondent at the hearing
3.2 Summary of the evidence of Mr. David O'Connor
Mr. O' Connor is an actuary and heads the Irish office of Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. Mr O' Connor said that his company was engaged by the respondent to review the data submitted by the complainant and to prepare a response in the light of a review of the respondent company's approach to rating.
- Mr O' Connor said that his first observation of the complainant's submission which was that the data submitted was incomplete and that it had a tendency to beselective which made the data appear to support the complainant's claim beyond
what is in the data. - He said that the MIAB report, data from which the complainant's submission was drawn, did not consider certain factors such as extra young driver exposure by age
of policy holder which could explain the higher claims cost for that age group. He
said that higher premiums could be charged for that proportion of the age group
with named young drivers to cover the extra risk. - Mr. O'Connor said that the MIAB data related to known reported claims and
estimates of the cost of those claims. He said that this information was deficient
and pointed to the limitations of the MIAB analysis outlined on page 726 of the
MIAB report which is a response to a submission by the Irish Insurance
Federation in June of 2000.1 - In relation to his review of the respondent's rating procedure he said it comprised
three sub components:
i Statistical process, identifying risk relativities using Generalised Linear Modelling (GLM).
ii Continuous re-evaluation through special investigation to identify differences
arising in business and statistical processes.
iii Focus on corporate objectives in relation to volume of business, cost, and business planning. - Mr. O'Connor stressed the importance of statistical modelling in rate setting and
said that a misinterpretation of the statistics would lead to a misalignment of risk
and rates resulting in either a loss of market share to competitors or an over
burden to the insurer in terms of cost, both of which could threaten the solvency of
the company. He said that the interpretation of risk must be accurate. - Mr O' Connor said that GLM the model used by Hibernian shows the significance
of specific risk factors. He said that GLM is used industry wide in Ireland and the
UK and in the United States. He said that nothing had emerged which explains
risk better than GLM. - 1MIAB response to IIF Document of 20 June 2000- Motor Insurance Advisory Board Report, Government of Ireland 2002, Stationary Office Dublin p726.
- Mr O' Connor said that data on such a system was constantly changing with the
addition of new data as claims were being recorded. - In response to a question about the narrowing of the difference between the
quotations provided by the complainant for the two age groups, between the
quotes complained of and the latter 14% quotation difference, Mr. O' Connor said
that he did not find the drop to be exceptional.
3.3 Summary of the Evidence of Mr. Brian Huston
Mr. Huston is a qualified actuary and is a Director of Hibernian General Insurance with particular responsibility for pricing. Mr. Huston gave evidence regarding premium setting at Hibernian with reference to the complainant's case.
- Mr. Huston said that the company's data collection for rate setting is in accordance with industry practice. At the time of a customer proposal the data on that customer is collected and any claims from that customer are added to the customer files as they arise. This allows the company to determine its claims exposure.
- He said that the statistical approach to risk assessment and rate setting became the
industry standard from the 1980s when a UK insurer became insolvent due to poor
risk assessment. He said that from that time onward companies started to look to
statistical models to determine the risk associated with various customer characteristics and at this stage the company considers 20 risk factors including
age in relation to setting premiums for customers. He said that age was an
important factor in this. - Mr Huston said that the company was particularly conscious of the high claims
risk associated with young drivers. As a point of information, to illustrate this he
said that in an effort to bring the risk down and consequently the cost of insurance
for the younger drivers on its books, the company had recently introduced a
scheme called "Ignition" which provided driver education to young drivers and on
successful completion of the scheme the young driver would be offered insurance
at a lower rate than that which would be offered to drivers who had not completed
the scheme. This was because the scheme had produced positive results for the
company in terms of a reduction in claims to the company from younger drivers.
Mr. Huston said that the cost of providing the driver education was borne by
Hibernian. This scheme did not apply in the complainant's case. - Mr Huston said that the MIAB data was not used by Hibernian in calculating
premiums as the MIAB presented data drawn from the experiences of a number of
insurance companies across the insurance industry whereas Hibernian utilised data
from its own experience in the insurance market. - Mr Huston said the company used the GLM model for determining risk and this
model allowed them to identify the impact of individual risk factors on claims
cost. He said that using this model, the risk associated with the age of a driver
could be isolated from other risk factors for example, car or engine type or the
area in which the driver lived. He said if the age variable alone had been the
determinant of the premiums quoted to the complainant in 2002, the actual
difference in premium quoted would have been 29% rather than the 21%
difference quoted to the complainant the lower age being a 29% greater risk. - He said that the premium quoted to the complainant therefore differed less than it
should have if the difference in the premium was based on age alone. Mr Huston
said that commercial factors intervened to narrow the gap such as the need to
protect market share in this part of the motor insurance market. - Mr Huston said that the provision of an on-line quotation facility was something
that the company moved into in line with other companies as a means of getting
new customers. He said that he regarded it as a facility for customers - Mr Huston said the GLM program used by Hibernian was provided by EMB
Consultancy of London and that he had worked in association with Mr. Michael
Brockman of that firm for a number of years in applying the GLM program
supplied by EMB, EMBLEM in Hibernian Insurance. Mr. Huston described the
system as dynamic as it changed with the addition of new data on customer
claims. The system was reviewed through investigations run by Mr. Brockman's
company periodically to ensure that the measurement of specific risks was as
accurate as possible.
3.4 Summary of the Evidence of Mr. Michael Brockman
Mr. Michael Brockman is a partner in EMB Consultancy LLP of London and is an experienced actuary having worked in the insurance industry for a number of years prior to becoming a co-founder member of EMB Consultancy which is the largest non-life independent actuarial consultancy in the UK. Mr. Brockman has published several papers on the application of GLM (Generalised Linear Models) in the motor insurance industry and has developed the EMBLEM software based on his knowledge and experience in this area. EMB supplies this software to a number of insurers including Hibernian.
- Mr Brockman said that he considered GLM to be the best statistical method in determining the risk associated with individual risk variables in motor insurance.
He said that it is the method used almost exclusively by all of the major insurers in
the UK and Ireland and submitted that although not yet the preferred method in
the United States it was becoming increasingly more popular among insurers
there. - Mr Brockman said that he did a GLM analysis, for the age variable, for the
hearing of this case, of the data held by Hibernian, that would have been utilised
for determining the quotations received by the complainant. This analysis showed
a 27% difference in risk between the two ages quoted, rather than the 29%
difference as said by Mr. Huston but still a full 6 percentage points higher than the
21% difference quoted to Mr. O'Donoghue on-line in November 2002. - Mr. Brockman submitted that particular rating factors do not operate in isolation
and that premium differences could be accounted for by interactions of rating
factors for example young drivers with high performance vehicles and older
drivers with high performance vehicles. He said the difference would reflect the
expected difference in driving behaviour between young and old policyholders
with respect to different vehicle types. - He submitted that the impact of named drivers can have a flattening effect on an
age related premium curve but this would be reflected in higher premiums being
charged to policy holders with named drivers - Mr. Brockman said that in determining a sound pricing basis the insurer has to
consider (1) the personal characteristics of the driver; (2) the vehicle, and (3) the
environment in which the vehicle is driven. Insurance companies have to identify
factors as proxies for behaviour patterns of drivers. - EMBLEM tracks these factors. It is important for insurance companies to gauge
what the true relationships of factors such as age are to driver behaviour. Mr.
Brockman said that software is required to unravel the different factors and isolate
and identify the risk associated with each factor. - Mr. Brockman agreed with the respondent witnesses that commercial factors may
also intervene in the determination of different premiums to be charged to customers. - Mr. Brockman said that Ireland, the UK and Holland were the most competitive
insurance markets in the world. - When asked to rank age among the various rating factors used by insurers, Mr.
Brockman said that in his opinion age would be in the top three after claims
history (no claims discount) and the cc of the vehicle. - Mr. Brockman was asked if he agreed with Mr. David O'Connor that GLM is the
best method in determining rating for insurers. He said that he hadn't found
anything more stable and predictive than GLM. - Mr Brockman said that he understood the MIAB data aggregated claims
information and thus in his view the impact of different factors could be lost. He
submitted that "Simple cross tabulated data of overall claim frequency and overall
average costs, such as those produced by the MIAB, cannot be used as a reliable
measure of rating differentials by age or any other factor." He further submitted
that more advanced statistical means are required. - Mr Brockman said that EMB the company of which he is a partner reviewed the
Hibernian accident data for the years 1994-1999. This is the data used to
formulate the complainant's quotes. It represented 699,000 policy years of data.
GLM was used to derive the risk differentials for each rating factor. A further
analysis was undertaken by the company for Hibernian on the most recent data
available for statistical analysis and which represents 1.2 million policy years of
data. Mr. Brockman submitted that the analysis was carried out professionally and
"the results yielded provide an accurate reflection of the different risk premium
differential of the various policyholder segments." Mr Brockman also provided
graphs of the data used by Hibernian showing the difference in the risk attaching
to age in isolation across a range of ages. At the request of the complainant a
further graph of the same data was provided using age intervals specified by the
complainant.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 First, I must assess whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to his complaint. He must (1) establish he is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case age ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not covered by the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.
4.2 In this case I am satisfied that the complainant is covered by the age ground and satisfies the first of the three criteria outlined above. In his provision to the Tribunal of copies of the two quotes received in November 2002, I am satisfied that he was subjected to specific treatment by the respondent company. The third test to be satisfied in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination is the test of less favourable treatment in similar circumstances. In this case consideration of this test must be made with reference to section 5 (2) (d) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 which provides for certain factors to be considered in determining the provision insurance policies or pensions. If, therefore, the respondent can show that his treatment of the complainant in connection with the provision of insurance cover was effected with 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, then Section 5.1 of the Acts shall not apply and the complainant will have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination...
4.3 The complainant in this case has said that he was offered premiums at rates which differed by 21% according to the age of the proposer all other factors being equal. He has argued that the report of the Motor Insurance Advisory Body shows that the 21% difference is not supported by the data collected by that body in the preparation of its report. Therefore, relying on this data in the absence of "entire data and software used by the actuarial staff of Hibernian in their everyday work of determining the risk that a prospective client presents to the insurer.", data which was requested by the complainant at the hearing of this matter to be provided to the Tribunal, the complainant has concluded that the difference in the two quotes constitutes discrimination under the Acts. The complainant has also criticised the data provided by the respondent as being selective in its support of their case.
4.4 In this case the respondent has submitted that the MIAB data submitted by the complainant in support of his claim is not used by the company in setting premiums as it would be inappropriate to do so as the data is drawn from a number of insurers and is aggregated, thus either masking or ignoring some of the factors that need to be considered in assessing claims risk associated with particular cohorts of customers. The respondent says that it relies on its own claims experience and utilises the statistical modelling technique of Generalised Linear Models (GLM) in determining the correct premium that should be offered to particular customers. They have argued that premiums are arrived at utilising this technique which it is argued is the most reliable method available for determining risk. Other factors which may affect the premium quoted to a customer are applied for commercial reasons and in the case of the complainant worked to reduce the difference between the quotes sought by the complainant in his on-line proposal.
4.5 I have to assess whether the method employed by the respondent provides actuarial or statistical data upon which it is reasonable to rely in setting the premiums quoted to the complainant in this case.
4.6 Firstly, I wish to address the request made by the complainant for the respondent to provide the Tribunal with its entire data and software used by the actuarial staff of Hibernian in their everyday work of determining the risk that a prospective client presents to the insurer. This was requested by the complainant in writing on the second day of the hearing of this matter. In determining my information needs for deciding this case, I have concluded that the material in the complainant's request went far beyond that which would assist me in reaching a conclusion as to whether the respondent's actions in the provision of the quotes was discriminatory on the ground of age. I am conscious that the complainant, if he required the information in advance of preparing his own case before the Tribunal, had several months to seek it, including the time when the hearing was adjourned twice at his request and also when the hearing was adjourned at the request of the respondent. He did not choose to do so in the time before the complaint came to hearing before the Tribunal. I also note that other specific information requested by the complainant of the respondent was provided to the complainant by the respondent through the Tribunal in advance of the hearing and at the hearing. Subsequent to the hearing further clarification on evidence submitted at the hearing was provided to the complainant at his request. Taking all of these facts into consideration I determined that it would not be appropriate to accede to the complainant's request in these circumstances.
4.7 In relation to the quotes provided to the complainant in November 2002, the key question in relation to whether they were discriminatory on the age ground rests on the reliability of the actuarial or statistical data provided by the respondent. This data concerning the risk attached to the various rating factors which underpinned the quotes provided on-line to the complainant was derived using the statistical method called Generalised Linear Modelling (GLM). The respondents have submitted that this method represents the best method in determining risk differentials associated with the various rating factors used by insurers. They have also submitted that rather than looking to industry wide source data such as that available to the MIAB for their analysis, the company relies on its own claims history. The data drawn upon by the company comprises data on policy holders representing 699,000 policy years including the claims made on those policies. The application of the GLM program allows individual factors to be isolated and the risk attaching to them identified and weighted. The company also applies commercial considerations in its analysis in the interest of maintaining its market share in particular sectors of the motor insurance market. In considering whether it was reasonable to rely on this approach to rate setting I am cognisant of the requirements of Section 5(2)(d) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 which exempts from the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Acts treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment 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
4.8 I relation to (I) above I have given careful consideration to the fact that the data utilised by the company is drawn from the respondent company's own claims history rather than the MIAB data which is drawn from a number of different insurers operating in Ireland including Hibernian and which according to that report represent 72% of the market. The differences in claims cost to policy holders at the two ages under consideration here certainly suggest a different outcome in terms of the premium that would be quoted to the complainant if that data were to be drawn upon as the basis for the quotes offered to him. The essence of actuarial analysis is the assessment of risk and the setting of prices for policy holders based on that risk assessment. The Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus Defines an actuary as "a person qualified to calculate commercial risks and probabilities involving uncertain future events..."2
2 Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 21st Century Edition, Harper Collins Publishers 2000
4.9 I recognise the work of the MIAB to be a valuable contribution to understanding of the Irish insurance industry and on the relationship of claims cost to pricing in this market. I understand that as a result of the Board's findings many measures have been adopted which are aimed at reducing the costs of premiums to policy holders.
4.10 However, in considering this case, I have considered that it is reasonable that MIAB data would not be the source data drawn upon by the company in relation to quotation requests made by the complainant in November 2002 and it was reasonable for the company to utilise its own claims history. In taking this view I can only rely on the actuarial evidence placed before me in this particular case, consisting essentially of the reliance on the MIAB report by the complainant and evidence from a number of expert witnesses on behalf of the respondent which was not countered by expert testimony on behalf of the complainant. I have based my conclusion on the following:
1. It is reasonable that an insurer should draw on actuarial data from a source that allows it to align its claims risk to its actual claims record and taking reasonable commercial factors into consideration, then to set the premium. I have concluded that the data from its own client base offers the appropriate method for achieving this. Utilising data from a source that incorporates data provided by other insurers operating in the market and who, for their own commercial reasons, may accept different levels of claims exposure may not be an acceptable source for one individual company to base its premiums on.
2. That the data presented in report of the MIAB was not intended to be the source book of data upon which insurers should calculate premiums but rather was in the context of the report as a whole, a basis on which problems relating to the cost of motor insurance across the market could be addressed.
4.11 I am conscious, however, that the concerns about commercial secrecy also work to restrict the level of transparency through which a potential customer can analyse the basis for the premium quoted and I consider that as full an explanation for the determinants of the quotation as is possible should be available to the customer on request. I consider the respondent's initial correspondence to the complainant fell short of this standard and I recommend that the company should address this issue.
4.12 With regard to the actuarial techniques utilised to determine the risk, I am satisfied from my investigations that GLM is a widely used and reasonable statistical method to apply and that it does represent a means to accurately identify the weighting to be associated with individual risk variables. In this case, utilising theresults provided of EMB's analysis of the 1994-1999 Hibernian data, i.e., the data which informed the quotations under consideration here, the risk difference between the two quotations was 27% based on age alone rather than the 21% difference in premiums quoted. The quoted differential was narrower, according to the respondent, due to the application of commercial factors which worked in favour of the younger of the proposers being considered in this case. Such commercial factors are considered in the light of (II) above and the evidence has been that they worked to create a more favourable rather than a less favourable quotation for the complainant. The complainant did not dispute the accuracy of the difference which emerged from the particular statistical analysis of the data but rather proposed that the data source used by the respondent lent itself to discriminatory premiums which the application of GLM did not show.
4.13 In a previous case before the Tribunal regarding the provision of motor insurance to a driver who was over 70 years of age the Equality Officer stated ".... 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,.........does indicate that higher claims 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..."3
3 DEC-S2003-116, Jim Ross v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc. p18
4.14 The point being made here is that where the results of actuarial reviews conducted by insurers show that higher claims costs are more likely to arise from claims from a particular cohort of claimants there is a case to be made for proportionately higher premiums to be quoted to that group based on the results of the review. I have concluded that on the balance of probabilities, in the light of all of the evidence presented in this particular case that the difference in the quotes provided to Mr. O'Donoghue, the complainant was 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 and is in accordance with Section 5(2) (d) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004. Even if less favourable treatment was established under Section 5(1) of the Act, the meeting of the conditions set out in Section 5 (2) (d) dictate that such treatment is not discriminatory. However, it is not clear from the evidence that the complainant a person of different age with similar risk levels would be quoted a lower premium. I conclude, therefore that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence that he was treated less favourably for the purposes of discrimination as set out in Section 3
(1) (f) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004.
5. Decision
5.1 I find, therefore, that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the age ground and that his complaint is not upheld.
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
21st December 2004