vous est acquise

15:23 Dec 23, 2022 

Yes, it may be a US vs. UK difference. If it is, then as translators we should consider the audience -- if it's strictly the UK, then apparently it's fine to say "held liable"; if it's anything else (US, Canada, worldwide, unknown...), then we should use a term that doesn't mean two different things depending on which EN-speaking country you're in.

At least in the US, holding someone liable or finding someone liable are things that courts do at the conclusion of proceedings (trial or otherwise -- proceedings can end at summary judgment, well before a trial would've occurred, if the facts are so clear that it's possible to reach a conclusion that early).

This policy seems to be talking about situations in which the insurer will undertake to defend the insured. That happens, of course, much earlier, typically even before the injured party files a lawsuit. It happens shortly after the filing of a claim, as soon as the insurer determines that the claim as filed arguably falls within the policy's coverage. That is of course much earlier than any point at which the party accused of causing the harm could be held/found liable for it.

So I agree with the "coverage applies" translation.

17:03 Dec 22, 2022 

There seems to be a problem with what you understand by the term "held liable". Usually your answers are so rigorous that I'm wondering whether this might be a transatlantic difference. In the UK you are "held liable" well before anyone has passed a judgment.

And/or... the reason for your views differing on this might be that you are considering the expression in terms of its use by a judge. But its use in T&Cs of an insurance policy doesn't mean "you have been found to be liable" (not in the UK anyway). It means a party (the other driver's insurance company) is accusing you of being at fault.

18:46 Dec 21, 2022 

Technically you do have to go to court to be "held liable," although your insurance company can settle a case by agreement with the insurer of whoever you hit.

But that's actually beside the point, because either way, these things -- being held liable, or reaching agreement for settlement -- are not what the original text is talking about. The text isn't talking about the ultimate outcome of the case. It's talking about your insurance company providing a defense for you at the OUTSET of the case.

In other words, if you have an accident that appears to be covered by your civil liability insurance, then your insurer will provide a defense. They'll provide and pay for a lawyer to represent you in the case. Obviously that happens early on, as soon as the insurer is notified of the accident -- not at the end of the case; not at the point where you're held liable or you settle.

11:09 Dec 20, 2022 

You're right abour R.C. - it's not simply the concept, but the actual cover (US coverage) provided
This is how it's defined in my focument:

Responsabilité Civile
Cette garantie couvre tous les risques de Responsabilité Civile
en et hors circulation :
- Dommages Corporels : Sans limitation de somme
- Dommages Matériel et Immatériels consécutifs :
(Then it goes on to specify limits ib certain cases)

09:13 Dec 20, 2022 

Re: "The problem with Civil Liability (cover/coverage) applies is that it doesn't say either "couverture" or "assurance"."

It does implicitly. Responsabilité Civile is capitalised. In an insurance text, that always refers to la garantie Responsabilité Civile (not to mention that it is probably defined elsewhere).

In other words: "la [garantie] Responsabilité Civile [de l'Assureur] vous est acquise [en vertu du Contrat etc.]"

It means that you're covered, the cover operates, etc. See https://www.macif.fr/files/live/sites/maciffr/files/conditio... (search for acquise/acquises).

00:35 Dec 20, 2022 

You don't have to go to court to be held liable. I went into the back of someone else and was held liable by agreement between their insurance company and mine.

Your disagrees are wrong in my opinion.

21:09 Dec 19, 2022 

with Civil Liability (cover/coverage) applies is that it doesn't say either "couverture" or "assurance". Is this ambiguous?

18:50 Dec 19, 2022 

Maybe "established", see this usage:

"...il est acquis qu'ils n'ont pas respecté cette échéance contractuelle...".

It's an ordinary, everyday usage of the word, not legal language, maybe that's what's throwing us a bit.

15:50 Dec 19, 2022 

If the responsabililté is acquise, that would seem to say that you are definitely liable, whereas the actual situation is merely that someone else is trying to hold you liable, rightly or wrongly.

I would trust the native speaker here (Cyril) and remember that contracts are not always worded with the kind of clarity of expression that we as foreigners would like to see.

To be absolutely certain, however, I would check the rest of the policy to see whether the relevant cover is an add-on that not all policyholders will have purchased.

15:27 Dec 19, 2022 

the French is counterintuitive, in that 'acquire' is generally related to something positive, something desirable. I agree with your intuition.

14:32 Dec 19, 2022 

Cyril's reading convinces me. I agree with his suggested translation, but if you were so inclined, you could write "if you have Civil Liability" and so reproduce the imprecision of the French, i.e. leave the "coverage" implied.

11:25 Dec 19, 2022 

la Responsabilité Civile = Liability Insurance ≠ you are held to be civilly liable.

11:06 Dec 19, 2022 

When you are held civilly liable, we undertake your civil defence in any court of law....

In cases of Civil Liability, we will represent you in any court of law...

10:55 Dec 19, 2022 

http://www.pfa-assurances.fr/filesopen/Particuliers/Automobi...
"Lorsque la garantie Responsabilité Civile vous est acquise, nous assumons votre défense civile devant toute juridiction en cas d’actions judiciaires mettant en jeu vos intérêts".