français term (edited): caract�re indemnitaire

Straight translation.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 mins (2005-05-26 13:18:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

As I understand it, the insurance here will cover awards of damages against the assured, but only insofar as such awards are made to compensate the third party. \"Punitive damages\" under US law do not compensate loss but punish the offender and \"reward\" the victim.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 mins (2005-05-26 13:19:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I should have specified that this refers to the whole phrase:

\"n\'ayant pas de caractère indemnitaire\" => \"not of a compensatory nature\"


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 56 mins (2005-05-26 14:05:05 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I\'m sure there is something missing from the phrase:


Possibilities if this clause appears among the \"exclusions\":

\"dont\"
- \"sanctions de toute nature n’ayant pas de caractère indemnitaire dont \"Punitive damages\"
I would say this means \"all penalties which are not compensatory in nature, including \"punitive damages\"\"

\"ou\"
- \"sanctions de toute nature n’ayant pas de caractère indemnitaire ou \"Punitive damages\"
I would say this means \"all penalties which are not compensatory in nature, or \"punitive damages\"\"

\"de\"
- \"sanctions de toute nature n’ayant pas de caractère indemnitaire de \"Punitive damages\"
this would mean \"all penalties which are not compensation for \"punitive damages\"\" as per Jane Lamb-Ruiz\' answer. However, this doesn\'t make any sense to me: I don\'t see how a penalty can be \"compensation\" for \"punitive damages\".

If this clause appears in the \"insured risks\" section:

\"sauf\"
- \"sanctions de toute nature n’ayant pas de caractère indemnitaire sauf \"Punitive damages\"
this would mean \"all penalties which are not compensatory in nature, except \"punitive damages\"\".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 48 mins (2005-05-26 14:57:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Jane:
As your list of web examples shows, \"punitive damages\" are often exluded from insurance policies.
Here, the insurance specifically excludes fines, penalties and... punitive damages.
\"Punitive damages\" are not \"compensation\" for anything: they are not linked to the victim\'s loss but to a perceived misbehaviour on the part of the offending party.
Therefore, they are similar to \"fines and penalties\".

Whatever is missing from the phrase (and there has to be something missing), there are only two logical explanations:
1) fines, penalties and other sanctions which are similarly \"not compensation\" (which includes punitive damages)
2) fines, penalties and other sanctions which are similarly \"not compensation\", on the one hand; \"punitive damages\" on the other hand.

The only kind of \"compensation for punitive damages\" that exists is insurance. However, since this is an exclusion clause under an insurance contract, it obviously can\'t be excluding, as a *risk*, an item which is a form of insurance *payment*. It just wouldn\'t make sense.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 49 mins (2005-05-26 16:57:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Jane:

Final note (I hope):
If you consider \"punitive damages\" to be adjectival in nature (i.e. the noun \"caractère\" is followed by the adjectives \"indemnitaire\" and \"(du genre) \'punitive damages\'\"), then what the phrase would be saying would be:

\"The insurance excludes fines and penalties which are NOT punitive damages\"

This would make the next part (\"Exclusion limited to the US\") a double negative (\"exluding\" punitive damages from the scope of the \"exclusion\") and pretty pointless, since punitive damages are a largely US phenomenon which insurers generally try to avoid.

I also wonder about your use of damages. Where you say \"compensation as punitive damages\", you certainly use \'damages\' in the sense of \'an award of damages\', which is correct. However, it isn\'t really possible since punitive damages are by nature intended to punish rather than compensate.
However, where you say \"compensation for punitive damages\" you seem to be using \'damages\' as a plural form of \'damage\', i.e. some sort of \'punitive loss\'. This is certainly not the meaning of \'damages\' here (and I would also say \'damage\' can never be correctly made into a plural as it is a collective noun - though it sometimes is made a plural in American English; whether this is \'bad English\' even from an American standpoint is not something I can say, but I hope it is!).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 50 mins (2005-05-26 16:59:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Jane:

Final note (I hope):
If you consider \"punitive damages\" to be adjectival in nature (i.e. the noun \"caractère\" is followed by the adjectives \"indemnitaire\" and \"(du genre) \'punitive damages\'\"), then what the phrase would be saying would be:

\"The insurance excludes fines and penalties which are NOT punitive damages\"

This would make the next part (\"Exclusion limited to the US\") a double negative (\"exluding\" punitive damages from the scope of the \"exclusion\") and pretty pointless, since punitive damages are a largely US phenomenon which insurers generally try to avoid.

I also wonder about your use of damages. Where you say \"compensation as punitive damages\", you certainly use \'damages\' in the sense of \'an award of damages\', which is correct. However, it isn\'t really possible since punitive damages are by nature intended to punish rather than compensate.
However, where you say \"compensation for punitive damages\" you seem to be using \'damages\' as a plural form of \'damage\', i.e. some sort of \'punitive loss\'. This is certainly not the meaning of \'damages\' here (and I would also say \'damage\' can never be correctly made into a plural as it is a collective noun - though it sometimes is made a plural in American English; whether this is \'bad English\' even from an American standpoint is not something I can say, but I hope it is!).