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.
Therefore, as no responsibility by XXX, their insured, has been proven, none of the individual insurers of the company named in these proceedings shall be called upon to honour their guarantees/have their cover invoked.
However, given the number of insurers involved in these dispute in their capacity as insurers of XXX, it is for the Court to examine the purpose and validity of each of the policies taken out by this company in order to determine which of the insurers may possibly be at risk and which of the policies were written to provide cover for this company.
My fault for posting this with two contexts. I choose, in the first instance, Mediamatrix's answer: "in a position" I choose, in the second instance, MathewLaSon's answer: "may be intended".
I would say after more research: "what policies may have been intended to provide coverage" (perhaps none is). I don't prefer the simple present tense here.
I apologise for the confusion. I asked for suggestions for the second "vocation" (i.e. in the second paragrah), although "vocation" is also used in the first paragraph. Do they then have different meanings in the two contexts?
Some things you are not allowed to insure for. They may not have to capacity to provide coverage for whatever it is. Besides, ''entitled" could mean they have the responsibility to pay. So, my first answer would not be that off.
mediamatrix (X)
Since when have insurance companies ...
17:09 Jan 31, 2010
... been keen to claim 'entitlement' to honour their guarantees when faced with an incident in which the courts are trying to determine who is liable? It is reasonably clear from Asker's context at 14:41 Jan 30 that a situation has arisen in which it is not clear which insurer - if any - should pay the bills. And it would be entirely out of character for any insurance company to raise a hand saying "Please let me pay!".
The idea is that they have the capacity to insure should they say so wish (être qualifié pour). That could also mean they are entitled in the sense that they have the right to do so, if they so wish. But I'm not sure "entitled" is the best, either. It's a difficult phrase to translate.
I really don't think "liable" is the right translation here, either, but that's just my opinion.
Carruthers (X)
Rob
14:59 Jan 31, 2010
Thanks very much Rob. We techies would often translate it as "designed to" as in "has a calling to" whereas here it's more "will not be called upon". ( i.e. not held liable)
I'm glad you posted your comment, because try as I might, I can find no other interpretation of "avoir vocation" that makes sense here other than being "liable" do do something. My feeling is that this is saying that none of this company's insurers is liable to see its guarantee called up (because it cannot be demonstrated that it has any liability with respect to the company). Regrettably, none of the other suggestions posted seem to make any sense in the context.
I have come across "avoir vocation à" used in this way before, though I don't have any relevant references to post off the top of my head.
Carruthers (X)
13:13 Jan 31, 2010
« Liable », for the simple reason that it’s the only interpretation that makes sense in this case. Even the natives are not altogether sure as to how the phrase should be employed/interpreted. See : http://www.languefrancaise.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=4401
Faute de responsabilité démontrée à l’encontre de la société XXX, leur assurée, aucun des assureurs de cette société, appelés dans la cause, n’a donc vocation à voir sa garantie engagée.
En tout hypothèse, en raison du nombre d’assureurs parties au litige en leur qualité d’assureurs de la société XXX, il appartient au tribunal d’analyser l’objet et la période de validité de chacune des polices d’assurances souscrites par cette société afin de pouvoir déterminer l’assureur ou les assureurs éventuellement en risques et quelles polices d’assurance a éventuellement vocation à garantir cette société.
Desdemone (X)
06:14 Jan 30, 2010
Catherine, why on earth would you not post the entire sentence??
A English summary of what the French says isn't very helpful. Please post the sentence in French so colleagues can see the actual context. Just the infinitive suggests that a dictionary is all that's needed-so please post the phrase as it's used in the text.
One company is trying to sue another company over damage to ship to shore cranes. The company has been exonerated of all blame. However, the court is to decide which, if any of the company's insurers are to be liable for ...?
peer agreement (net): -3