Drivers in single lane get gouged

f you live in Los Angeles, cars are necessary to get around because of an unreliable public transportation system. But those of us with cars have to take on the responsibilities that come with driving. In California, the law requires that in order to drive a car you must be insured with a minimum of liability insurance coverage.

Ironically, although there is a requirement for cars to be insured, there is no requirement for human health insurance coverage (just to show how much more cars are valued as opposed to human life; but that's another issue all by itself).

Just recently, I got a new car and started shopping around to find the best possible insurance deal. By now, I have heard every ad on TV and radio claiming to insure "any car and any driver" with "guaranteed low rates." I figured that being a good driver, with no tickets and no accidents, I should be able to get a reasonable deal. I was wrong. It turns out that there is one factor that is not on my side - my unmarried status.

I decided to do a little test on an insurance company's web site and get a quote for two drivers. The two drivers have the same exact driving record, live in the same neighborhood, drive the same model car, are the same age and sex, have the same occupation and drive the exact same number of miles to work or school each day. The only difference is that one of the drivers is married and the other one is single.

A person with a minimal amount of intelligence and common sense would assume that the insurance quotes would be the same. Wrong! It turns out that being single is a major disadvantage from an insurance company's perspective. Being single somehow means that you are less responsible, no matter what your driving record suggests, and should be charged more for your car insurance policy.

As I put in all the information, I got my quotes from three major insurance carriers for the married driver and for the single driver. The rates were as follows for a six-month premium for a married woman - Progressive, $1,117; State Farm, $678, and Allstate, $992. And then came the moment of truth for the single me - Progressive, $1,334; State Farm, $1,023, and Allstate, $1,554. So the average car insurance for a married woman of age 23 comes out to $929 while for a single woman of same age the price is $1,304.

Being single not only means paying more in taxes, but now there is the added bonus of paying more for car insurance. It seems that state laws that prohibit other agencies from discriminatory policies based on marital status do not apply to insurance companies.

I visited the web site of the state of California, and according to Chuck Quackenbush, state Insurance Commissioner, the mission of his agency is "to ensure that consumers are protected against excessive or discriminatory insurance rates and that laws are enforced with equal diligence." I wonder if this mission statement applies to married people only. From what I understand, we are "all created equal" and the laws that are supposed to be enforced with "equal diligence" should apply to everyone, even to those of us who happen to be single.

You might be wondering how this practice is justified. Insurance companies offer an explanation that statistics show single people are more likely to get into car accidents and drive irresponsibly. I was actually able to talk to a representative from Progressive insurance company and asked about their reason for the rate discrepancies. Apparently, if you're married, insurance companies add the stability factor in your insurance quotes and give a discount just for the fact that you have tied the knot. Yet considering that the latest statistics show that almost 60 percent of all marriages end in divorce, does the "stability" discount really make sense?

Eliza Shamshian is a senior majoring in political science and communication.

Copyright 1999 by the Daily Trojan. All rights reserved.
This article was published in Vol. 138, No. 09 (Monday, September 13, 1999), beginning on page 4 and ending on page 6.