Nikki Scott-Despaigne Jun 12, 2009:

My understanding As I understand it, this is about lack of entitlement, lack of right to cover, to benefit, whatever. The cover/benefit etc is the result of the lack of right/entitlement.

MatthewLaSon Jun 11, 2009:

My understanding I don't think "non-coverage" is ideal here in the translation. It's about not being entitled to benefits, which allows you to be covered by insurance. That's how I read it.

Marco Solinas (asker) Jun 11, 2009:

Thank you Nikki Thank you very much Nikki. Your comments have been very useful to make me understand the meaning of the phrase. I think I have it now. You are also right that I should have specified that it referred to France.

Nikki Scott-Despaigne Jun 11, 2009:

Context bis Previous comments relevant to France.
Returning to the case in point, it might be helpful to indicate what you mean by "health insurance provider".
Do note also that not having cover is not quite the same thing as not being entitled to cover.
Lack of cover may be the result of :
- not being entitled to it, not having been entitled to it
- not having requested cover in the right way, failure to have provided the right docuements
Further docuemtns are being requested here, but again, perhaps context is lacking. An indication for the documents being requested would help determine this issue.
Indeed, the specific point I woudl come round to making is that it remains true that "droit" does never the less describe "rights" and thus entitelemtn or any other suitable synonym. It is not quite the same thing as "cover".
If you have "cover" we can suppose that you have the right to it.
You may have right to cover, but have failed to establish those rights giving access to cover.
The distinction is important. To be precise, the original refers to "droits", thus "rights" and not "couverture", "cover".
I'd plump for "right",, "entitlement" or something synonymous.

Nikki Scott-Despaigne Jun 11, 2009:

Context I've chipped in quite a few times here. Time is useful and I have come round to realising that perhaps a little more context would help, or would have helped. If this is France, then instances of "attestation de non droit" relate to the ASSEDIC (Pôle Emploi) which is the organisation providing benefit for unemployed. If you are not entitled to cover, then an "attestation de non droit" is issued. It indicates that as you have not worked as an employee for a required total number of months within a given period, then you are not entitled to unemployment benefit. This has direct implications on entitlement to state health insurance cover. The ASSEDIC document triggers off your entitlement to apply for another series of benefits, RSA (ex-RMI), CMU, CMU complémentaire etc. If you do not have basic rights, then your private mutual health insurance will not cover you, as it is complementary to basic cover. No basic cover, no mutual. Two solutions : 1 - work again for the required time to reactivate the whole procedure (ie 6 months more or less, full -time) ; 2 - apply for the CMU and CMU complémentaire.

Marco Solinas (asker) Jun 11, 2009:

Not in Canada Thanks for the suggestion GS. No. It is not in Canada; if it were it would be easy, thanks to the fact that insurance companies have bilingual sites and produce bilingual documents. In any case, the discussion and the suggestions have helped a lot. Thank you to all participants.

gsloane Jun 11, 2009:

Thanks, Nikki That's exactly what it all means. Sorry about my haste and confusion today. I have had quite an overtaxing day and I should have left this discussion alone until I had time to express myself coherently!

Marco, correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect that the target audience may be Canadian. In that case, it suffices to look up any of the health care insurance carriers here, like Great Life West, Sunlife, Claimsecure, etc to see how the phrase is rendered in Canadian English.

I think the context is clear. It's about the reinstatement of health insurance coverage once the proper documents are provided.

Omar Lima Quintana Jun 10, 2009:

Niki: crystal clear, as usual. Thanks

Nikki Scott-Despaigne Jun 10, 2009:

attestation / certificate The term "attestation" is used is quite specific situations, wills testaments oaths and so on, where a person is swearing certain facts to be true. Moving into the more administrative domain, then "certificate" is the right term. In this particular case, we have a letter type document, simply certifying the current situation. No-one is getting down on a bended knee swearing to their last breath that the person in question is not able to benefit from cover for the time being. It is much more plain and straightforward than that. The implications are of course not insignificant for the person in question!

Omar Lima Quintana Jun 10, 2009:

Nikki: Clear and sharp. <br>My answer is Non cover Attestation; gsloane argues that the sentence is stilted. Is it that stilted for you?

Nikki Scott-Despaigne Jun 10, 2009:

Meaning and context Marco provides context which shows that for the time being, entitlement to cover has not been established. However, further documents have been requested. The issue of cover is being looked into. The person's status, based on current information, does not allow him/her to cover. Once further information has been processed, entitlement to cover may be confirmed.

gsloane Jun 10, 2009:

Attestation de non-droit Sorry, you're right. I had done this in haste. I had meant to put "certificate". We don't really use "attestation" that much in English. Also, I beg to differ. Legal terms aren't at all stilted. When I say stilted, I mean the language inherently lacks rhythm and flow.

MatthewLaSon Jun 10, 2009:

How do you know they are talking about non-coverage here? Could it be that the insurance company will not cover you if you are entitled to certain benefits from your place of work, government, etc.? I am confused.