This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
French to English translations [PRO] Bus/Financial - Insurance
French term or phrase:mobiliser la garantie
An airport is trying to claim under a policy for loss of rent from its shops during the Covid crisis period. AAA is the airport, BBB is the insurer. "PE" stands for perte d'exploitation.
In the archives and elsewhere I see people favouring the expression "call the guarantee". But to me, not an insurance specialist, it appears to fit pretty well with "make a claim under the guarantee/policy". Except for the 4th excerpt here, where the insurer, BBB, is the one doing the mobilisant, and where the meaning would appear to be "allow a claim".
"Nous faisons suite à nos précédents échanges dans ce dossier dans lequel vous nous interrogez sur la possibilité pour l’Aéroport de AAA de mobiliser les garanties souscrites auprès de BBB afin d’obtenir, à la suite de la pandémie de Covid-19, l’indemnisation (a) de ses pertes d’exploitation et (b) des pertes des loyers des boutiques de l’aéroport."
"Pour prétendre mobiliser cette garantie, l’assuré devrait selon nous (1) établir qu’il est légalement privé de ses loyers (2) et que cette privation légale résulte d’un dommage matériel."
"Pour prétendre mobiliser cette garantie « Perte de loyers », l’assuré doit établir qu’il a été légalement privé des loyers qui lui étaient dus."
Here the meaning seems to be "allow a claim under the guarantee": "Surtout et pour pouvoir prétendre mobiliser la garantie « Perte de loyers », BBB devrait pouvoir exiger de l’assuré qu’il démontre que cette perte de loyers est la conséquence d’un dommage matériel."
"Traditionnellement, la mobilisation de la garantie PE est conditionnée à la caractérisation d’un dommage matériel, étant souligné que dans le cas présent aucun dommage matériel n’est avéré."
Explanation: The asker has requested that someone suggests this so that he can choose it and get it into the glossary. I'm happy to oblige and hope no one minds
You keep asserting that "seeking coverage" is correct BUT you are coming from a US perspective. We DO NOT use "coverage" in the UK and if we go "seeking cover" then we are looking for an insurance policy, not trying to get an insurer to pay up. You are most certainly flogging a dead horse.
Nope, appealing the decision is part of the process of seeking coverage. Everything the insured does to get the insurer to pay, from initial claim filing through appealing the insurer's denial through litigation, falls into the category of "seeking coverage."
That entire process -- from filing a claim through all the next steps needed in your case -- is called "seeking coverage" in US insurance law (and "seeking cover" in at least Hong Kong and Indian EN -- those are links that came up quickly for me; a deeper search might find other countries as well).<i/>
is to "appeal the decision" n English generally.
Giddy up there :)
ph-b (X)
France
Eliza,
16:19 Jun 27, 2020
My post was not clear enough, apparently. The point I miserably failed to make was about register, not about meaning.
I hate to flog a dead horse, as we say in EN, but it isn't just "making a claim." Already explained why further down in the discussion, but to recap, "making a claim" is literally just filing a claim: notifying your insurer of the loss and asking them to pay, in whatever manner your policy says you should do it.
Once you've made the claim, if your insurer denies it (as many have done in the COVID-19 context -- see Mpoma's text for an example), and you insist that they shouldn't have denied it, then a series of next steps takes place, possibly including a lawsuit. That entire process -- from filing a claim through all the next steps needed in your case -- is called "seeking coverage" in US insurance law (and "seeking cover" in at least Hong Kong and Indian EN -- those are links that came up quickly for me; a deeper search might find other countries as well).
What it really means is seeking a determination from your insurer (or a court, if necessary) that this loss of yours is indeed covered by the policy, and thus will be paid/indemnisée. "Obtaining coverage" can mean obtaining that determination, etc. Depending on the nuances in Mpoma's text, I suggested variations on it.
On dirait que tu essaies de nous...mobiliser ha ha ha
ph-b (X)
France
Encore un effort, camarades !
14:59 Jun 27, 2020
Isn't there a way to reflect in English that the author chose to use mobiliser and not faire jouer for instance? I agreed with Mpoma very early in the discussion that this is what is meant ("make a claim /claim for... under...", etc.), but in terms of translation, can native speakers not find something as "overused or flogged" (Adrian's apt words) in E as mobiliser in F? I tried my luck with "leverage" (my pet hate in English) and dug up a grand total of... 2 occurrences of "leverage insurance cover". Even ProZ.com's ghit-mad translators will reject it. Fine. But are you all certain the same "register" (I hesitate to use this word here) of that silly French phrase cannot be copied in English? It seems to me that is what we are supposed to do as translators. Mind you, if experienced, specialist translators cannot turn up such a groovy (!?) expression, that is surely good news where English is concerned.
These references are indeed valid this time as your expression is actually used.
But as AllegoTrans said, this simply does not work for UK speakers and perhaps not for Australians, Canadians etc. Who knows. So Mpoma has gone for "making a claim" which is a safe bet.
Here are some UK websites talking about Covid-19
Rishi Sunak, said that “for those businesses which do have [an insurance] policy that covers pandemics, the government’s action is sufficient and will allow businesses to make an insurance claim against their policy”
or
Many businesses with the benefit of these insurance policies have now been forced to make claims under them.
or
Click the name of the insurer to see our review of its service and find more details about how to make a claim.
or
Claims will be made under various types of household and commercial insurance, including commercial property and business interruption, travel, life, health and liability (including general/public liability, workers compensation and employment practices liability and directors and officers liability).
SO WHY GO FOR THE RISKY US ENGLISH EXPRESSION WHEN WE HAVE A MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE ONE
When "seeking cover(age)" is used in the sense of trying to get a claim paid, it's broader than just making a claim. It includes filing your claim, responding (or having your lawyer respond) to the insurer's denial, negotiating with the insurer, and (where necessary) filing a lawsuit against the insurer to get a court to order them to pay.
For links on that, see my post below, or the addition I just made to my answer.
I'm not sure why you're still questioning whether "seek cover(age)" can mean asking your insurer to pay a claim under your existing policy, but since you are, here:
"101 lawsuits have been filed as of Wednesday seeking coverage from insurers for business interruption losses caused by COVID-19.... insurers have been giving blanket denial to such claims, while business business owners — especially restaurant owners — are counting on an insurance payout to survive." https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2020/05/21/29718...
"AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic."
Shame not to get this one in the glossary. maybe Adrian will kindly agree to do this as he got the most agrees and his answer was the closest to what you want.
As things stand I'm not really convinced that any of the answers corresponds to the simple meaning which I suggested at the beginning, and which is even clearer now I understand what the drafter meant to mean with excerpt 4). Otherwise I shall have to close "with no acceptable answer", which would be a shame.
You say the legal meaning of "seeking cover" is "trying to persuade your insurer to cover a particular loss that isn't specifically named in the policy". I cannot agree. You may possibly be correct for USA but in UK terms this is simply making/asserting an insurance claim. Period.
"it's an impersonal turn of phrase"... I can't agree with you there. The verb pouvoir requires the presence and agency of an agent, which grammatically should be BBB but, it seems, is intended to be AAA, the insured. It's just sloppy drafting, the offence being only slightly mitigated by context: i.e. the fact that only an insured, never the insurer, could ever possibly attempt to mobiliser a garantie.
Except that in your reference document you now cite, "seek(ing) cover(age)" simply does NOT exist so it does NOT back you up on this one little bit. You quote "availability of cover" which simply shows that the writer was in the same conundrum as the asker. Cover ALREADY exists so he is trying to find a way around this and uses "availability of cover" You need to stop disagreeing with everyone who makes a valid contribution ("trigger" in this case) and accept that you are often not right.
You said: "'Seek coverage' (..."cover" in UK English) to any UK reader means to go looking/shopping for insurance."
That's the colloquial meaning I mentioned in my post below: seeking cover(age) = shopping for insurance (in both the US and UK).
But the legal meaning is trying to persuade your insurer to cover a particular loss that isn't specifically named in the policy (or to persuade the court to make the insurer cover it, if you end up having to sue). For instance, arguing that your business interruption policy, which doesn't specifically say that it covers (or excludes) business interruption "due to epidemics," should cover your COVID-19 business interruption. IOW "seeking cover(age)" under your existing insurance policy, not seeking to purchase a new policy.
Due to COVID-19, "many organisations have been considering the cover available under their Business Interruption insurance.... However, many insurers have been signalling a reluctance to confirm the availability of cover, and claims have been rejected on a range of grounds..." http://m.klgates.com/covid-19-fca-asks-the-high-court-to-con...
"Seek coverage" (which I will translate to "cover" in UK English) to any UK reader means to go looking/shopping for insurance, i.e. in the first instance. The whole point is that an insurance policy provides cover. Whether a particular successful claimwill be successful is an entirely different matter. For this reason, "obtain/seek/have coverage", which possibly means something different in the US, is completely wrong for UK consumption.
You're exactly right in saying this: "It seems to me that [mobiliser la garantie] can really only mean, as per my original suggestion, the act of making a claim under an insurance policy providing cover against X."
That's what it means and that's why the insured (Airport AAA) is the subject of 3 of the sentences. As for the second-to-last one (which starts "Surtout et pour pouvoir prétendre mobiliser la garantie..."), neither party is the subject; it's an impersonal turn of phrase along the lines of the EN "Above all, in order for coverage to be claimed, BBB should be able to require the insured to show that this loss of rental income is the consequence of physical damage." Clumsily written in FR, I agree, but that's what it means.
In short, you're right: it means make a claim for coverage under the policy -- which is why I proposed "seek coverage," etc.
This may be a US vs. UK difference, but at least in the US, "insurance coverage" has a colloquial meaning (not at issue here) and an insurance industry/legal meaning (at issue here). Under the latter meaning, an insured party "seeks coverage" when it suffers a loss and then asks its existing insurer to pay for that loss. For instance, COVID BI claims like those in Mpoma's text:
"We are beginning to see complaints filed by business owners seeking insurance coverage under commercial all-risk insurance policies for loss of business income resulting from... shut-down orders imposed in the wake of COVID-19." https://www.burr.com/2020/04/13/restaurant-seeks-declaratory...
The reason an insured "seeks coverage" under an existing policy is because having coverage for X type of loss (fire, business interruption...) doesn't guarantee that your insurer will pay for all such losses. You file, then they determine whether (1) your claim was timely, (2) your loss fits the policy definition and (3) whether it's excluded.
Your parsing of the French in the 4th example is interesting and has caused me to revise downwards my opinion of the literacy of the author of this document. It was, in my reading, the insurer BBB which peut prétendre mobiliser ... but I now see that the subject of pouvoir in example 4) could in fact be meant to be the insured, AAA.
The opening subordinate clause should make BBB its subject. And it's inelegant if it doesn't: standards are clearly slipping in the French lycées. I thought we Anglo-Saxons were kind of unique in this regard.
On the positive side, at least this makes excerpt 4) less mysterious. La brume se dissipe....
PS some may argue that this is not in fact an egregious, inelegant grammatical lapse. I say that it's pretty bad. The author should have said, instead, Surtout, et pour que l'assuré puisse prétendre mobiliser la garantie.... But young, groovy types in a sexy industry like assurances presumably hate having to use vieux schnock words like puisse.
"One thing is certain: cover is in place (which is precisely why the airport is trying to use it) and not in the process of being obtained, sought, etc"
which we all agree on except for Ms. Hall who proposes "obtain/seek cover"
As for other verbs than "trigger", I wonder if "invoke" would work ???
is a posh version of faire jouer la garantie - everyone nowadays mobilise something, even the mayor of my village! Just another buzz word that has become meaningless. So faire jouer la garantie, i.e. "make a claim/claim for" (under a policy) or any other fancy terms that say the same thing. That is the overall meaning of 1, 2, 3 and 5 As for 4, there is no "deliberate action which is semantically related to the action which the insured performs". Both actions are semantically different and mobiliser la garantie keeps the same meaning: for the airport to be able to claim... (i.e. not the insurer allowing the claim, as you appear to think in your intro), the insurer must be in a position to demand (devrait pouvoir exiger) that said airport (= the insured) show, etc. (exiger de l’assuré qu’il démontre). Whether or not to use "trigger" will depend on how you build your sentences. It is possible to write that the airport claims that the trigger event has occurred (see the article from Swiss Re). One thing is certain: cover is in place (which is precisely why the airport is trying to use it) and not in the process of being obtained, sought, etc
Here's a possibly useful ref: https://blogavocat.fr/space/albert.caston/content/l’assuranc... ... Although it only uses the phrase "mobilisation de la garantie", this text is useful because it lets you get inside the head of the author, who obviously knows what he means by this expression.
It seems to me that it can really only mean, as per my original suggestion, the act of making a claim under an insurance policy providing cover against X. In this text it is clearly and most understandably the insured which mobilise. But we have to find an expression which not only matches the context of my excerpts, and allows AAA to perform a deliberate action... but also enables BBB, the insurer, to perform a deliberate action which is semantically related to the action which the insured performs.
@Eliza. Exactly right. The "trigger" is the insured event. But the subject of the verb mobiliser in my extracts is either AAA or BBB.
If you think about what AAA or BBB is actually doing when it mobilise, this is a conscious act ("prétend"), which it did not have to perform.
Looking at this again, something like activate the cover might be better. The problem with this, though, is that at no point is the cover non-active. The whole point about cover is that it is there. But not all cover is applicable when you hope it might be. In my reading of this, there certainly appears to be an idea of "interpretation" or "opportunity": are the circumstances correct for the cover to apply?
Hello It's true that there is already cover so it's hard to find the right verb but "trigger" is the best suggestion to date.
ph-b (X)
France
Eliza, different slant
16:51 Jun 24, 2020
"What triggers coverage is the event itself." Exactly. Which is why it is perfectly acceptable for the insured to use "trigger" since (their point of view) they claim that the trigger has happened. See examples above at 17.29. I accept that Adrian's use of the gerund is perhaps not adequate (I hope he won't mind my saying so), but the articles I quoted show "trigger" used (as a passive verb) to describe exactly what Mpoma's text is about. In other words, that's a good indication that is the direction to follow and not yours, which gives your translation a different slant from that of the source text. To get back to Mpoma's original question, "make a claim under..." is certainly right, but so is "triggered" in this particular context (for instance "(to have) the cover (is) triggered", see quoted examples + post at 17.29). I note in that respect that your "seek/obtain coverage" - which you claim is what the insured should say - is not used in these articles. I have just realised my link to the Jones Day article is not working. Its title is "Time For a Policy Check-Up", which should help finding it. There are others too on the same topic. Usual apologies for the missing paragraphs.
Great links, PhB. To clarify, "trigger" is certainly an insurance term, but it's not a thing that the insured does or asks the insurer to do. What triggers coverage is the event itself (fire, tornado, accident or contamination that forces the business to close, etc.). That's why it's not the right verb to translate phrases where the insured is seeking coverage for the loss.
For instance, from your first link:
"After the occurrence of the disruptive incident and the eventual closure of the airspace or airport, the cover is triggered on the seventh day of closure...": The occurrence of the incident and resulting airspace/airport closure triggers insurance coverage.
Second link: "business interruption coverage is triggered when the policyholder sustains 'direct physical loss of or damage to' insured property by a covered cause of loss": The physical loss or damage triggers the insurance coverage.
In Mpoma's text, the disruptive incident already happened and the insured already notified the insurer. So if coverage was triggered at all, that already happened, and it's not the right translation for what the insured is doing now.
ph-b (X)
France
trigger coverage
15:29 Jun 24, 2020
Just to say Adrian's answer was not up when I posted my discussion entry. I agree with it. As for Eliza's disagreement, of course the airport has to prove that the insured event has occurred, but that does not mean that the terminology is not right: "in order to (be able to) trigger the cover, the airport must prove 1)... 2)... 3)... 5)..." As for 4)... "So that the airport can trigger the cover, the insurer ought to be able to demand that the insured show..." (or words to that effect).
ph-b (X)
France
claim under/trigger
15:04 Jun 24, 2020
"But to me, not an insurance specialist, it appears to fit pretty well with 'make a claim under the guarantee/policy'." Agreed: COVID 19 ET PERTE D’EXPLOITATION : MOBILISER LES GARANTIES Le 16 avril dernier le Cabinet CHAURAND vous alertait sur la nécessité de mobiliser vos garanties d’assurance perte d’exploitation. Il est temps de déclarer le sinistre lié à la fermeture de votre établissement auprès de votre assureur. http://www.chaurand-avocat.fr/publication-47523-covid-19-et-... See also this article: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/02/time-for-a-poli... which is about the same insurance issue as in your text, where they use "trigger". As I am sure you know, Jones Day is a reputable law firm. The word "trigger" is also used by Swiss Re, a no less reputable reinsurance corporation, in this article about non damage business interruption, which again is debated in your text: https://corporatesolutions.swissre.com/dam/jcr:af445de8-4e47... "Trigger" is also used in a number of similar texts. Apologies for the lack of paragraphs.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
32 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +3
trigger/ing the cover/age
Explanation: First of all, garantie means cover/age in insurance and, secondly, overusing or flogging a vague French term like mobiliser for 'setting in motion' the policy, raising funds or even redeeming bonds can backfire on the insurer.
The reason is that any *ambiguity* of ins. and reins. terms will always be construed by the courts, English or otherwise, contra proferentem - namely against the insurer as the profferor/ offeror of the contract, ins. cert. or policy.
Triggering the coverage could be used even if it is the insurers who are doing the 'mobilisation', namely to recover from their own underwriters at Lloyds or other reinsurer.
PS no need again for anyone to lift and reword this answer- otherwise, my dog Trigger will get very upset....
Example sentence(s):
Coverage Trigger — the event that must occur before a particular liability policy applies to a given loss
Adrian MM. Austria Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 24
Notes to answerer
Asker: Yes, I should have said that I was aware <i>garantie</i> means cover when it refers to the thing not written on paper. One of the reasons why I had a suspicion "call the guarantee" to be a bit dodge.