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.
German to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Insurance / Excess insurance policy, D&O insurance policy
German term or phrase:frei von
This is a deceptively simple term in the context of an insurance policy. More specifically, the term occurs several times in the "Special Insurance Conditions" (Besondere Versicherungsbedinung) of the excess insurance policy for a company in the aviation industry. Here are a few examples:
Example 1: (Section of policy entitled Other Insured Parties) "Versicherungsschutz besteht auch für Frau C in ihren Funktionen als Local Agent in *** gemäß dem *** Corporations Act 2001 für die *** Airlines AG und *** Air Lines Ltd., frei von Frau C bis zum *** bekannten Pflichtverletzungen."
My translation: "Insurance protection exists also for Ms. C*** in her positions as Local Agent in *** pursuant to the *** Corporations Act 2001 for *** AG and *** Air Lines Ltd., free of Ms. C***’s violations known by ***."
Does this "frei von" mean the insurance coverage does not exist for Ms. C's violations that are known by the date? Or the opposite?
Example 2: (Exclusions Section) "Mit Wirkung vom ****/2008 gilt, frei von den Repräsentanten der Versicherungsnehmerin i.S.v. Ziffer 10.1. **** sowie der in Anspruch genommenen versicherten Person bis zum ****/2008 bekannten Pflichtverletzungen:"
My translation: "Effective ****/2008, the following applies to violations freely known up until ****/2008 by the insured’s representatives in the sense of Section 10.1. **** as well as the insured person who is held liable:"
Does this "frei von" mean that the insured's representatives are not insured for violations that were known up until the stipulated date?
Example 3: (Exclusions Section) "Insidertrading Mit Wirkung vom ****/2008, frei von den Repräsentanten der Versicherungsnehmerin i.S.v. Ziffer 10.1. **** sowie der in Anspruch genommenen versicherten Person bis zum ****/2008 bekannten Pflichtverletzungen, gilt:"
My translation: "Effective ****/2008, the following applies to violations freely known up until ****/2008 by the insured’s representatives in the sense of Section 10.1. **** as well as the insured person who is held liable:"
How is "frei" being used in these 3 instances that are parallel to each other? It seems that the normal meaning "free of", "devoid of" obfuscates the meaning. Does "frei von" mean "except for"? I'd be grateful for any confirmation or redirection.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 16 hrs (2016-12-28 13:19:06 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Yes, after reading a bit more, 'preclude' may be the better option. However, in some instances, barring is still more than valid. , depending on the sentence structure you use.
...it'd not be advisable to write: "Insurance coverage exists..., barring any violation/breach of contract known to Ms. X..."
You could argue: Ms. X has knowledge of any such violation = entire coverage goes poof. That's not how I read it (e.g. http://www.pro-steuerberater.com/fragebogen-vsh.htm) . Thus, I disagree with Haigo's second sentence too ("Once she is in violation of these duties coverage for her ends.").
Similar (albeit not the same) situation: "An exclusion found in most directors and officers (D&O) liability policies that precludes coverage for claims from litigation that was pending prior to the inception of the policy." https://www.irmi.com/online/insurance-glossary/terms/p/prior...
Thank you to each of you for your contributions. I have determined the meaning to be that certain violations known by Ms. C prior to a certain date are not covered. That makes sense. @Björn, yes a portion of this involves retroactive insurance. Some of the sentences I used as examples were not from the section on retroactive coverage; rather, they were from "exclusions" and other sections of the policy. @Ramey, and Haigo, I decided not to go with "barring" and instead went with "precluding" because of my own style and because of previous choices made in this policy and others. "Barring" definitely is the meaning, though, and in this instance it means precluding.@Michael, your contribution confirmed my very tentative intuition. I am grateful to each of you. My final translation: Insurance protection exists also for Ms. C*** in her positions as Local Agent in *** pursuant to the *** Corporations Act 2001 for *** Airlines AG and *** Air Lines Ltd., precluding violations known by Ms. C*** prior to 03/21/2016.
EN example: " (1) to eliminate coverage for situations or incidents known to insureds that have the potential to give rise to claims in the future and (2) to preclude coverage for "stale" claims that arise from events far in the past, even if such events are unknown to the insured." https://www.irmi.com/online/insurance-glossary/terms/r/retro...
Your "preclude" (which I consider to be the better option): "These prior and pending exclusions preclude coverage for those claims that arise out of or relate to matters occurring before the applicable date set forth in the policy." http://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/insu...
I believe Timothy is translating a contract about this here: "Bei der Rückwärtsversicherung werden der technische und der materielle Beginn eines Vertrages vor den formellen Beginn gelegt. D.h., dass der prämienbelastete Zeitraum und der Zeitpunkt der Gefahrtragung durch den Versicherer vor dem Zeitpunkt des Vertragsschlusses liegen.[...] Weiß der Versicherer bei Abschluss des Vertrages, dass die Möglichkeit eines Versicherungsfalls ausgeschlossen ist, so hat er keinen Prämienanspruch. Weiß der Versicherungsnehmer im Gegenzug, dass der Schaden bereits eingetreten ist, hat er keinen Leistungsanspruch." https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rückwärtsversicherung
"Voraussetzung für die Wirksamkeit des Vertrags ist das subjektive Nichtwissen der Beteiligten darüber, ob ein Versicherungsfall eingetreten ist oder noch eintreten wird. Der Rechtsprechung des BGH zufolge schadet bei vereinbarter Rückwärtsversicherung die Kenntnis vom Eintritt des Versicherungsfalls nur dann, wenn der Versicherungsfall schon vor der Antragstellung eingetreten ist." http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Definition/rueckwaertsve...
Ramey Rieger (X)
Germany
Ah, so,
11:58 Dec 28, 2016
then I take it back. Happy New Year, Björn (well, SOON).
Ramey, I said his explanation. The reference to "insurance company" is for nought. The insured has to have known to be in violation; the company didn't have to know (which would make no sense to me here anyways).
Ramey Rieger (X)
Germany
barring
11:51 Dec 28, 2016
documented infringements incurred by Mrs. C before/as of..... why not? By the way, barring was my suggestion....
I was referring to Haigo's last sentence: "barring violations by MS. C. known by..... (by the insurance company)"
This is completely wrong. I wouldn't use "absence of information" or even "indication" either, as especially the latter is in direct contradiction to what I just posted below (it needs to be proven that the person insured clearly knew he or she violated the contract).
Ramey Rieger (X)
Germany
@Björn
11:29 Dec 28, 2016
In your last example, insurance coverage (bars) precludes....
Timothy, you need to combine "frei von" and "bekannten Pflichtverletzungen" - don't consider it separately. I got you similar case here:
"Das Gericht führt aus, dass die Leistungsfreiheit des Versicherers durch eine vertragliche Regelung 'frei von bekannten Verstößen' im Sinne von § 2 Abs. 2 S. 2 Abs. 1 VVG a.F.2 positive Kenntnis des Versicherungsnehmers voraussetzt. Der Versicherungsnehmer müsse positive Kenntnis davon haben, dass der Versicherungsfall eingetreten oder eine ihn begründende Pflichtverletzung geschehen sei. Positive Kenntnis könne nicht durch die Erwägung ersetzt werden, der Versicherungsnehmer habe die betreffenden Umstände kennen müssen. Dies kennzeichne allenfalls einen Fahrlässigkeitsvorwurf, jedenfalls aber keine Kenntnis.
Der Versicherer wolle den Versicherungsnehmer bei Abschluss der Versicherung an einer bewussten Manipulation des versicherten Risikos hindern. Solange der Versicherungsnehmer Unkenntnis von einer bereits eingetretenen Pflichtverletzung habe, bestehe diese Manipulationsgefahr nicht."
This, however, is NOT in line with Haigo's explanation.
The 3 following options excluding, in the absence of any information/indication, having no knowledge seem to be close semantically. This has been a particularly difficult passage because the logic is complicated. This sentence is specifying an exclusion from an exclusion (namely something that is included in the insurance coverage) and the condition for the exclusion of the exclusion. Thank you to each of you for taking some time to look at this with me. I am grateful!
Explanation: It seems to me that it refers to the fact that coverage is only provided for Ms. C. for as long as she acts within her duties as an agent for these companies without being in violation of these duties. Once she is in violation of these duties coverage for her ends. For example 1 could it be "barring violations by MS. C. known by..... (by the insurance company)
Haigo Salow United States Local time: 18:59 Works in field Native speaker of: German
Notes to answerer
Asker: I understand your logic. My sense is that because this is a Directors and Officers insurance policy for a major aviation company, it is precisely certain types of violations that are covered by the insurance policy, but if they were known by Ms. C by a certain date, then they are not covered. Does that line up with your understanding?
Asker: Hi Haigo, Given the overall context of the policy (which I was privy to and unfortunately you could not be due to confidentiality issues), I take it that Ms. C is actually covered for violations, as long as Ms. C had no knowledge of the violations prior to a certain date. So in the interpretation I am suggesting, she may violate certain obligations after a certain period, and they will in fact be covered because coverage of those violations is the subject of the insurance policy itself. But the suggestion "barring" is itself appropriate. Thank you so much.
peer agreement (net): +1
