01:41 Nov 24, 2011 

Like you pointed out, the definition of 人的損害 should help translate this term into proper English. I don't have a strong objection to use "bodily injury" for the term. But there needs to be clear reasons for the use of "bodily injury" where (1) the topic seems to be related to Japanese tort law; (2) "bodily injury" could mean 人身傷害 without explanation otherwise; (3) bodily injury coverage pays only medical expenses, a sum for missed work and pain and suffering, and doesn't pay 慰謝料, 逸失利益, 弁護士費用, etc.; and (4) "personal injury" possibly refers to damages sought under Japanese tort law because it includes a wide range of losses and expenses.

01:40 Nov 24, 2011 

You might have incurred damages in addition to bodily injury such as a third degree burn on your body. For example, you had to take medical leave and lost wages, you did not make enough to pay bills thereafter, so you used your credit card for payments and daily periodic interest charges are adding to your credit card, and so on. You may want to bring up the manufacturer's liability under torts after using up remedies available for breach of contract in order to recover damages arising out of use of the defective product. Now you can sue the manufacturer for product liability injury. Class action attorneys would try to collect as much as damages for you from the manufacturer since they have a duty to act in the best interest of their clients, injured end-users. The product manufacturer therefore purchases product liability insurance (which is different from CGL) to protect itself from the suits. So PL insurance is designed for businesses.

(to be continued)

01:38 Nov 24, 2011 

What you are talking about is warranty for a product. You can sue the manufacturer or distributor of the defective toaster for beach of express warranty, implied warranty for a particular purpose, implied warranty of merchantability and such to recover your medical expenses actually paid or incurred. That's why you see the term "bodily injury" under 人的損害 in the claim report for general liability insurance you provided as reference. It is a form an insured manufacturer typically use to report an accident to its insurer so that the medical payments coverage of the commercial general liability (the manufacturer is the policy holder of this CGL) pays medical expenses to the end user (he/she has warranty for the product). Often product warranty policy states something like "in no event shall the purchaser be entitled to recover incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of any defect, failure or malfunction of the product." These issues are discussed as a matter of contract: whether there is breach of warranty.

(to be continued)

15:54 Nov 23, 2011 

It is possible that the context shows that this phrase is about damages rather than triggering events, in which case "personal injury" and "property damage" would both be wrong. In English these phrases point to triggering events, rather than the damages/losses that flow from them. The correct wording would be: "damages for bodily injury or property damage."

This HP document lends support to my position:
http://h17007.www1.hp.com/docs/support/warranty/59906018_swt...
"HP will be liable for damage to tangible property per incident up to the greater of $300,000 or the actual amount paid for the product that is the subject of the claim, and for damages for bodily injury or death, to the extent that all such damages are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been directly caused by a defective HP product."
"当社は、裁判所により当社製品の不具合が直接の原因であると判断された損害についてのみ、有形の財産に対する損害 および人的損害につき責任を負います。但し、有形の財産に対する損害については、3,000 万円か損害を発生させた製 品の購入価格の高い方を上限とします。"

Also, see this form:
http://www.hdi-gerling.jp/jp/docs/form_downloads/general_lia...

15:51 Nov 23, 2011 

Thanks for your comments, tulip bubble! To clarify, I'm not saying that "the injury to be covered under the policy is only the triggering event." Rather, the occurrence of a triggering event triggers coverage, and once coverage is triggered, the insurance company will pay the damages flowing from that triggering event (the original injury). As you said, the "damages" may include medical expenses and other costs, but if there is no physical injury, there is no liability.

For example, if a toaster explodes and scares me, I can claim losses flowing from the property damage (burn marks on my kitchen counter, broken dishes, etc.). But unless I was physically injured by the explosion, I can't claim for losses flowing from my fear (emotional distress is not a cognizable legal injury, although it can be the source of damages when it accompanies physical harm).

In any case, Joyce-san should be able to tell whether the policy is meant to cover non-physical injuries.

14:19 Nov 23, 2011 

I assume product liability insurance in the context is governed by Japanese law and the insurance policy should be read accordingly. I answered the question based on what we understand in this particular jurisdiction. In Japan, like many other jurisdictions, the product liability law is a type of tort law, but the burden of proof is on the defendant. The scope of liability of a manufacturer (or distributor/seller) is discussed in the same way as that of a tortfeasor and it is limited to reasonably foreseeable damages, which include not only medical expenses but also costs associated with a defective product. An insurer such as AIG underwrites product liability insurance to businesses engaged in the chain of manufacture or distribution of a product so that they are covered against product liability risks. So product liability insurance indemnifies the insured business from claims related to the manufacture or distribution of products to the public. I really don't see the reason to restrict the coverage to physical injury or bodily injury. The phrase "生じた場合には" doesn't help specify that the injury to be covered under the policy is only the triggering event.

02:17 Nov 23, 2011 

I ran out of space, but I wanted to clarify my parenthetical comment.

You would only need to replace "bodily injury" with something more general if the policy indicated that it would cover loss/damage flowing from a purely intangible injury. Examples would include emotional distress (not generally recognized by U.S. courts except as "pain and suffering" damage flowing from a triggering bodily injury) and reputational harm due to libel.

If the policy is meant to cover these harms, it will probably be crystal clear about this, but my guess is that it does not. In fact, considering that you are dealing with products liability, I'd be shocked if the manufacturer paid reputational or other intangible injuries. People generally sue products manufacturers over exploding toasters and spontaneously combusting gas tanks, defective products that cause bodily injury or death, and liability is generally imposed for all of the financial and other intangible costs associated with these physical injuries.

Okay, enough blabbing. Hope all of that makes sense!

01:52 Nov 23, 2011 

I'd recommend checking the definitions section of the agreement -- it should give you a sense of which injuries are covered by this phrase. To be clear, there is a difference between the injury that TRIGGERS coverage (I'd be flabbergasted if the policy didn't limit such injuries to physical injuries - either of the bodily or property variety) and the DAMAGES (i.e. expenses/losses) that flow from from these triggering injuries (the policy very likely covers medical expenses, for instance).

Some of the answers given here seem to confuse the two concepts above. We are talking about an injury OCCURRING (生じた場合には), which leads me to believe that we are talking about the triggering event rather than the damages flowing from that event. Therefore, I strongly suspect that the "人的" portion of the phrase should be limited to physical injury, which would generally be called "bodily injury" in a policy.

Of course, the definitions section of the agreement itself should clear up any ambiguity, so hopefully you will consult that as well.

(Also, it IS possible that the policy covers harms that are purely reputational in nature, but if it does, it probably spells that out somewhere.)

HTH!