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.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. French to English
  3. Insurance

dommages immatériels vs dommages indirects

17:58 Jul 26, 2012
French to English translations [PRO]
Bus/Financial - Insurance / dommages
French term or phrase: dommages immatériels vs dommages indirects
Hello,

I have an insurance teaser here. The text is an agreement (supplier/customer). Straightforward.

What I am struggling with is the difference between "dommages immatériéls" and "dommages indirects" because I am finding both translated as "consequential loss/damages".


"Le Fournisseur prendra en charge la réparation de tout préjudice mettant en cause sa responsabilité et celle de ses sous-traitants dans le cadre du Contrat, dans les conditions du droit commun, suite à un événement et/ou une non-conformité et/ou un défaut des Prestations et/ou des Produits qu'il aura livré ou suite à une défaillance de ses préposés et/ou de ses sous-traitants, occasionnant des **dommages corporels, matériels, et/ou immatériels** que pourraient subir SOCIETE ABC, les préposés de SOCIETE ABC et/ou tout tiers.

Le Fournisseur ne sera pas responsable des **dommages indirects**."

Many thanks.
Steve Melling
France
Local time: 11:22


Summary of answers provided
5financial losses v. consequential losses
Neil Crockford
4Consequential loss vs. indirect damages
Salih YILDIRIM
4any financial or economic loss vs indirect or consequential loss/damage
B D Finch
4 -1intangible damages v. indirect damages
TechLawDC
3immaterial damage vs indirect damage
Nikki Scott-Despaigne


Discussion entries: 3





  

Answers


33 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
Consequential loss vs. indirect damages


Explanation:
Imho

Salih YILDIRIM
United States
Local time: 05:22
Native speaker of: Native in TurkishTurkish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Wendy Streitparth: or just consequential vs indirect damage
17 mins
disagree  AllegroTrans: "damages" is a false friend in this context
4 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)
The asker has declined this answer

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
financial losses v. consequential losses


Explanation:
Since the opposition is between "dommages matériels" and "dommages immatériels", caused by the supplier or its servants or agents, "dommages immatériels" are direct financial losses.

Neil Crockford
Local time: 10:22
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 282
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)
The asker has declined this answer

2 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
any financial or economic loss vs indirect or consequential loss/damage


Explanation:
“Neither the contractor nor the purchaser shall be liable to the other by way of indemnity or by reason of any breach of the contract or of statutory duty, or by reason of tort (including but not limited to negligence) for any loss of profit, loss of use, loss of production, loss of contracts or for any financial or economic loss or for any indirect or consequential damage whatsoever that may be suffered by the other.”
http://www.iaccm.com/news/contractingexcellence/?storyid=130...

The underlined catch-all provision -- for any financial or economic loss -- is vital and should ensure that a good claims expert cannot spend profitable time trying to find alternative descriptions for non physical loss to avoid the exclusion of “loss of profit, loss of use, loss of production, loss of contracts.”

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2012-07-26 20:27:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, the above is all one quote, but the link got into the middle of it instead of the end.

B D Finch
France
Local time: 11:22
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 92

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Nikki Scott-Despaigne: Seems like a good suggestion at first sight, but is problematic as the FR includes a notion of indirectness which "fin/econ loss" does not, arguably covered by "any" hwvr, but then it might be too wide.//Yes, but "domm imm" is arguably indirect, so diffic
38 mins
  -> "Any financial or economic loss" was proposed as a translation that would cover "dommages immatériels", not as a translation of "dommages indirects".
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)
The asker has declined this answer

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): -1
intangible damages v. indirect damages


Explanation:
(It is also safest to stay close to the source text.)
Intangible damages include moral, emotional, and punitive damages.
---
The Award of Punitive and Emotional Distress Damages in Breach ...
www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/nejicl/vol8/avallone_v8n2.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Before one may analyze the relationship between moral damages, and punitive and emotional distress damages, a definition of moral damages must be ...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2012-07-26 19:27:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Intangible Damages - Definition of the Insurance Term Intangible ...
www.online-health-insurance.com/health.../intangible-damage...
Intangible Damages - Damages awarded for such things as pain and suffering following an accident (e.g., when an insured damages another car, his liability ...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2012-07-26 19:28:01 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Thus also includes pain & suffering.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:27:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

intangible damage or injury, v. indirect damage or injury

TechLawDC
United States
Local time: 05:22
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 4

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Nikki Scott-Despaigne: Confusion between the meaning of "damage" and "damages". Damage is suffered, damages are awarded. False friend, mistranslation, eg : "punitive damages" which are awarded cannot be "intangible damages".
1 hr
agree  philgoddard: I agree with your last answer.
3 hrs
disagree  AllegroTrans: "damages" is a false friend in this context// yes, but even so the term "damage" is not that used by the insurance industry here in Europe - see my and Jenni's comments re "loss and damage"
3 days 23 hrs
  -> Please read entire entry before commenting. I would do the same. i.e. actually read, for you!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)
The asker has declined this answer

3 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
immaterial damage vs indirect damage


Explanation:
Not a very satisfactory solution on the face of it, I admit, but one which I justify by the explanations below. I would avoid using "consequential loss" as it is very specific and indeed often mis-used in English law. It is very, er, English. Likewise, the notion of "dommages immatériels" is very French, again, implying a reading which is very, well, French!

Note the use of "damage" not "damageS", the latter being compensation "dommages et intérêts", an easy mistake to make, (a tenny weeny typo does it), but it is a mistake which could have serious consequences and which may make the more knoweldge client cringe.


dommages immatériels vs dommages indirects
I think it is a question of remoteness. “Dommages indirects” seem to be further down the chain of causation than “dommages immatériels”. How does the French notion of remoteness of damage compare to the UK (or US) notion?
1) On « dommages immatériels »
http://www.grouperouge.fr/assurances-entreprise-garantie-dom...
« …tout préjudice d'ordre pécuniaire tel que perte de chiffre d'affaires, frais divers, conséquences financières de la privation de jouissance d'un bien ou d'un service... »
Sounds straight forward enough, but French insurers consider three types of « dommages immatériels”. The schema is quite helpful on this source.
« 2.1 Les dommages immatériels consécutifs : il s'agit de dommages immatériels consécutifs à un dommage corporel ou matériel garanti (par la police R.C).
Exemple : un court circuit dans un onduleur livré et installé par l’assuré est à l’origine d’un dommage d’incendie dans la salle informatique du client entraînant une perte d'exploitation. Le dommage matériel est garanti car il est "causé par" l'onduleur livré par l'assuré. La perte d’exploitation qui en résulte - consécutive au dommage matériel ci-dessus, garanti par la police est couverte au titre des "Dommages immatériels Consécutifs".
2.2 Les dommages immatériels consécutifs à un dommage corporel ou matériel non garanti (par la police R.C).
Exemple : seul l’onduleur (dans l’exemple précédent) subit un dommage. Il n'y a pas de dommage d'incendie causé au local. Ici, le seul dommage matériel est celui qui est subi par l'onduleur, et un tel dommage n'est pas couvert pas la police RC. En revanche, la perte d'exploitation qui en résulte est couverte au titre des "Dommages immatériels non consécutifs". Cette perte d'exploitation n'aurait pas été couverte avec la définition des dommages immatériels du § 3.2.1 précédent.
2.3 Les dommages immatériels non consécutifs (encore appelés par les assureurs dommages immatériels "purs") : il s'agit de dommages immatériels se produisant alors même qu'il n'y a aucun dommage matériel ni corporel à l'origine des dommages immatériels. »

2) On « dommages indirects »
http://www.assurance-site.fr/lexique-assurance-D.html
« Dommages indirects
Dommages considérés comme étant la conséquence directe d’un sinistre mais dont le rapport de causalité est trop lointain pour ouvrir droit à une indemnisation. »
From the same source, compare the definition of “dommages immatériels”.

3) On causation and remoteness of damage (UK).
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199287642/hodgson_ch02.pdf
CF page 71, for the notion of remoteness : direct consequences and reasonably foreseeable consequences.
I think it is useful to stop there, as you can already see the notions are already diverging.
I mean, take a look at page 76, the Wagon Mound. Every UK law student knows this one!
“2.5.1.5 The jurisdiction of reasonable foreseeability as a test of remoteness of damage
You should consider whether ‘foreseeability’ is restricted to the law of negligence as a governing factor in ‘remoteness’. Its jurisdiction appears to extend beyond the tort of negligence. The Wagon Mound (No. 2) (above) is authority for the proposition that the tort of nuisance is subject to the same test of remoteness as negligence, and the House of Lords has held in Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53 that this is also the case for liability arising under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which imposes strict liability at common law. (Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher are covered in Chapter 11.
There now seems every likelihood that foreseeability will be held to be the test of remoteness in some other torts as well, whether or not it [foreseeability] is the test of liability’. (Winfield pp. 158–9).
It may not apply to deceit (Winfield, p. 289) or any tort where liability turns on proof of intention or recklessness; the action for breach of statutory duty may also be exempt from the influence of foreseeability. The position with the tort of defamation is not abundantly clear.”

4) Is “consequential” loss or damage a useful solution?
http://www.herbertsmith.com/NR/rdonlyres/58D8F9B2-2D93-4F79-...
(Takes me back. Used to instruct this firm when I worked in ethics and discipline, and later in protection and indemnity shipping insurance).
“What is "consequential loss"?

In order for an exclusion clause to be effective, it must clearly identify what losses are being excluded. However, parties often include a clause that excludes "consequential loss" (or "consequential damage") without any proper understanding of that term or what the exclusion will in fact achieve. Consequential loss is often used in everyday language as shorthand for a broad category of losses including loss of profit, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill and so on; but the legal meaning of the term may be quite different. As a result, a clause that purports to exclude liability for consequential losses may not in fact achieve the result that the parties intended or expected.”
Read through the two definitions of how common law and how statute defines “consequential loss “ and you will see that it is a complicated field.
I would avoid using this term as it is very English-law specific, probably a high risk of error if used in a system based on Roman law.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:16:43 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

"knowledgeable"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:21:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Just to make myself clear, you can use like for like where the meanings and implications are identical. This is not the case here. Using "consequential" here is an unsatisfactory solution in view of the possible readings.

Immaterial and indirect damage are distinguished in French in a way that cannot be represented accurately by English insurance terminology. Avoid it. Using ordinary English words for waht are specific French insurance terms will at least draw attention to the fact that there are not suitable direct word-for-word equivalents.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:22:24 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

"What" not waht (time for bed?)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:52:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

FURTHER THOUGHTS FOLLOWING TechLawDC's comments:

Thre appears to be some consensus on the use of "indirect damages" for the second term. The main problem seems to be "immatériels". I do not like "consequential" for the reasons explained in my post. Financial /economic loss is an accurate description of the type of loss but fails to account for the range covered by the French term; it suggests pure economic loss and is thus too restrictive in my view, although "any" might get round that one.

Intangible is an interesting idea. Better than my "immaterial", although it might be too wide as it could be read to include pain and suffering for example, which the French term does not include at all. Maybe "any financial and/or economic loss" would be good for the first one (dommages immatériels) and, avoiding "consequential loss" for the second one are more literal "indirect damage" (dommages indirects).



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2012-07-26 21:53:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

So BD Finch, I am coming round to agreeing with your suggestion for the first term after all! ;-)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2012-07-27 00:53:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Intangible damage cannot work for the first one. "Intangible damage" exists as a term and includes pain and suffering for example and does not include financial/economic loss. It cannot work for "dommages immatériels" as the meanings are quite different.


Nikki Scott-Despaigne
Local time: 11:22
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 113

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  TechLawDC: "Immaterial" damage is unheard of in English, and is to be warned strongly against because of ambiguity. ("Immaterial" means unimportant.)
7 mins
  -> The fact that "immaterial damage" does not exist is not necessarily a problem. We are seeking a solution to a French term which has different implications and meanings to similar UK terms. Valid point on the ambiguity of "immaterial" though! Thank you.
neutral  Peter Shortall: "Non-material" would get around the problem of "immaterial"
2140 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)
The asker has declined this answer



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search