Jan 4, 2015 21:47
9 yrs ago
4 viewers *
French term
notion de propre assureur
French to English
Law/Patents
Insurance
Service contract
Can anyone help me translate this phrase? I know roughly the meaning/concept but I'm not sure what the specific term would be for this in English.
Here's the phrase it's found in and the previous phrase for context:
"L'assureur aura obligation d'avertir les différentes parties en cas de résiliation (par l'assureur ou l'assuré) ou d'annulation de la renonciation à recours. Les insuffisances de garanties de capitaux découlant de cette disparition ne peuvent faire l'objet de règle proportionnelle ou de notion de propre assureur contre l'assuré (non prévenu)."
The contract is between a warehouse storage company and a company wishing to outsource storage/delivery to them.
I also found this definition or explanation (source: www.focuspcg.com/content/.../530/.../RFC 358.pdf) of the term if it helps:
"Les provisions de propre assureur visent à constater au passif par avance les risques de pertes engendrés pour
l'entreprise par la décision de ne pas souscrire à des polices d'assurance, dans un contexte où la réglementation
n'exige pas une couverture d'assurance. Par exemple, une entreprise peut choisir de ne pas se couvrir au
titre des risques de pertes résultant de contrats de prestations ou d'opérations à l'exportation, pour
autant que l'offre des assureurs permette de couvrir les risques en cause. De même, une entreprise peut
décider de limiter au strict minimum les polices d'assurance contractées sur une flotte de véhicules."
Thank you!
Here's the phrase it's found in and the previous phrase for context:
"L'assureur aura obligation d'avertir les différentes parties en cas de résiliation (par l'assureur ou l'assuré) ou d'annulation de la renonciation à recours. Les insuffisances de garanties de capitaux découlant de cette disparition ne peuvent faire l'objet de règle proportionnelle ou de notion de propre assureur contre l'assuré (non prévenu)."
The contract is between a warehouse storage company and a company wishing to outsource storage/delivery to them.
I also found this definition or explanation (source: www.focuspcg.com/content/.../530/.../RFC 358.pdf) of the term if it helps:
"Les provisions de propre assureur visent à constater au passif par avance les risques de pertes engendrés pour
l'entreprise par la décision de ne pas souscrire à des polices d'assurance, dans un contexte où la réglementation
n'exige pas une couverture d'assurance. Par exemple, une entreprise peut choisir de ne pas se couvrir au
titre des risques de pertes résultant de contrats de prestations ou d'opérations à l'exportation, pour
autant que l'offre des assureurs permette de couvrir les risques en cause. De même, une entreprise peut
décider de limiter au strict minimum les polices d'assurance contractées sur une flotte de véhicules."
Thank you!
Proposed translations
(English)
| 3 +1 | concept of own insurer / self-insurance |
Daryo
|
| 4 | idea of own insurer (for any stipulated excess) |
Adrian MM. (X)
|
References
| Self-insurance |
Daryo
|
Proposed translations
+1
6 hrs
Selected
concept of own insurer / self-insurance
"L'assureur aura obligation d'avertir les différentes parties en cas de résiliation (par l'assureur ou l'assuré) ou d'annulation de la renonciation à recours. Les insuffisances de garanties de capitaux découlant de cette disparition ne peuvent faire l'objet de règle proportionnelle ou de notion de propre assureur contre l'assuré (non prévenu)."
being you own insurer is a legal concept
But here you will probably need to rephrase the whole sentence, possibly along the lines of:
Regarding [Les insuffisances de garanties de capitaux découlant ...] it will not be possible .... nor to apply the concept of own insurer against a non-notified [l'assuré]
depending on how you turn the sentence, "the concept of self-insurance" could also fit.
being you own insurer is a legal concept
But here you will probably need to rephrase the whole sentence, possibly along the lines of:
Regarding [Les insuffisances de garanties de capitaux découlant ...] it will not be possible .... nor to apply the concept of own insurer against a non-notified [l'assuré]
depending on how you turn the sentence, "the concept of self-insurance" could also fit.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you, your explanation and references were very helpful!"
2 hrs
idea of own insurer (for any stipulated excess)
The asker's quote is not quite congruous. It is not about leaving goods uninsured, but personal exposure in another sense, namely being one's own insurer for the first part (insurance excess/ reinsurance deductibkle) of any claim made.
So, if a product is covered for €100,000 and the excess is €1,000, the policy holder is an own insurer for the latter amount.
So, if a product is covered for €100,000 and the excess is €1,000, the policy holder is an own insurer for the latter amount.
Example sentence:
The court held instead that: When there is no excess insurer, the insured becomes his own excess insurer.
Reference comments
5 hrs
Reference:
Self-insurance
Self-insurance is a way for a business to lower ongoing premium expenditures and to take control of low-level risks within the organization. This is achieved by the business becoming its own insurer. This can be for a certain level of risk or a certain type of risk. The business creates a fund of money and manages the fund and any claims asserted.
For example, a car dealership with a service center may identify that the largest risk it faces working on a customer's car is a complete destruction of that car. The dealership looks into liability insurance for such a risk and finds the premiums too high or the limits to be too high for the risk. The dealership concludes that $50,000 would be the amount of one catastrophic claim if one of the mechanics makes a major mistake. It also concludes that the risk of this happening is very low. Rather than pay additional premiums for this coverage, the dealership creates a fund of $50,000, puts the money in the bank and earns interest. In the event the unthinkable happens and a Lexus is destroyed by a mechanic, the fund is there to cover the loss.
The above is an extremely simplistic example. Also, I am using a small business as a model and that is perhaps not a good example. This is because - regardless of online pitch hype or purported offshore schemes - self-insurance only makes sense, in most instances, for very large businesses and for very specific risks.
For example, in the state of Michigan, if you wanted to self-insure your automobile risk the state requires the business to own or operate 25 or more vehicles, possess a net worth of over $5 million, and sets a very high fund limit. In most instances, being self-insured is for large companies, with many employees, vehicles, locations, and net worth.
Some risks cannot be self-insured without being approved by your state. Workers' Compensation can be self-insured, but requires approval and the meeting of certain guidelines. Mandatory auto liability insurance can be self-insured only by meeting state requirements. Federal regulations allow the formation of risk retention groups under specific guidelines.
But, for enterprises that are large enough, self-insurance planning as part of an overall risk plan makes great sense. Why pay an insurer when you can pay yourself? Plus, in most instances the company is not insuring the entire risk. Instead it is self-insuring a portion of the risk.
...
http://businessinsure.about.com/od/insuringyourbusiness/f/wh...
For example, a car dealership with a service center may identify that the largest risk it faces working on a customer's car is a complete destruction of that car. The dealership looks into liability insurance for such a risk and finds the premiums too high or the limits to be too high for the risk. The dealership concludes that $50,000 would be the amount of one catastrophic claim if one of the mechanics makes a major mistake. It also concludes that the risk of this happening is very low. Rather than pay additional premiums for this coverage, the dealership creates a fund of $50,000, puts the money in the bank and earns interest. In the event the unthinkable happens and a Lexus is destroyed by a mechanic, the fund is there to cover the loss.
The above is an extremely simplistic example. Also, I am using a small business as a model and that is perhaps not a good example. This is because - regardless of online pitch hype or purported offshore schemes - self-insurance only makes sense, in most instances, for very large businesses and for very specific risks.
For example, in the state of Michigan, if you wanted to self-insure your automobile risk the state requires the business to own or operate 25 or more vehicles, possess a net worth of over $5 million, and sets a very high fund limit. In most instances, being self-insured is for large companies, with many employees, vehicles, locations, and net worth.
Some risks cannot be self-insured without being approved by your state. Workers' Compensation can be self-insured, but requires approval and the meeting of certain guidelines. Mandatory auto liability insurance can be self-insured only by meeting state requirements. Federal regulations allow the formation of risk retention groups under specific guidelines.
But, for enterprises that are large enough, self-insurance planning as part of an overall risk plan makes great sense. Why pay an insurer when you can pay yourself? Plus, in most instances the company is not insuring the entire risk. Instead it is self-insuring a portion of the risk.
...
http://businessinsure.about.com/od/insuringyourbusiness/f/wh...
Discussion
www.focuspcg.com/content/.../530/.../RFC 358.pdf)
it's this one
http://www.focuspcg.com/media/files/rfc_358
but it's too technical, here is a much clearer explanation:
http://businessinsure.about.com/od/insuringyourbusiness/f/wh...