Positive and negative discrimination in Insurance is leading to injustice and inequality.

More and more people are being offered reduced life insurance premiums if they profess to leading a healthy lifestyle, while others are being discriminated against. Last year, vegetarians and fish-eaters were being presented reduced-price life insurance through a scheme launched by a non-profit insurance enterprise. The company, called Animal Friends Insurance who are underwritten by  ‘LV=’, formerly Liverpool Victoria, held that vegetarians and fish-eaters could benefit from the reduced life insurance premium because they were less likely to suffer from some chronic illnesses, including certain types of cancer.

In an article published by The Guardian a spokesperson for Animal Friends Insurance said "When it comes to life insurance, we believe that insurers should start to look at meat eaters and non-meat eaters in a similar way to the way they look at smokers and non-smokers."

We all know women pay less on their car insurance, so should they pay less on their life insurance too? Some insurance companies might think so. A study in 2004, which is the most recent year for which statistics are available, showed that the life expectancy for U.S. women was 5.2 years longer than men. This would clearly seem to indicate that women in general have healthier lifestyles. Pru Health, whose maxim is that ‘It pays to be healthy’ offer reductions on gym memberships to their policy holders. In some cases even free membership is available.

Generally, there are two different types of life insurance. The first kind, protection only policies, also known as ‘term insurance policies’ pay out if you die within a specified period but otherwise pay out nothing. The second type of insurance is investment insurance which may be an endowment policy; these can mount up and be cashed in before the holder dies. However, regardless of whether you choose an investment or term insurance policy you could be discriminated against.

In another Guardian article last year, a deal was reportedly agreed between the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and gay campaigners. Until then gay couples were charged higher premiums than their heterosexual counterparts. Alan Wardle, the director of public affairs at Stonewall, affirmed: "Insurance premiums should be based on someone's behaviour, rather than their sexual orientation." The issue he cited as previously preventing equality was one of HIV. He added: “...we can [now] arrange insurance for civil partners of up to £1m without requiring an HIV test, which is the same for married [heterosexual] couples.”

The troops who were preparing to go to Afghanistan, way back in 2001 were denied life insurance despite being incredibly healthy. The Ministry of Defence told soldiers who applied for life insurance that they were simply ‘too late’ and should have applied earlier during peace time. A Ministry spokesperson at the time issued this statement: “"It is normal practice for the underwriters to stop accepting cover when we are in an operational stance. It is a hard line to take, but it is like getting to the top of the ski slope and only then deciding you might need accident insurance cover."

Equally unfair is the treatment of recovering cancer patients by many insurers. A report in 2006 revealed that thousands of cancer patients were being unfairly denied life insurance. Survival rates are increasing due to medical advances, but cancer patients who had every chance of getting better were having to put their homes at risk and were made needlessly distressed. Call centre employees were accused of asking people insensitive questions regarding their health and routinely turning cancer patients down. The government may be doing everything it can to stop discrimination, positive, or negative in a number of significant areas but sadly it seems that the insurance industry is for now being overlooked.