frei von

English translation: barring / precluding

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
German term or phrase:frei von
English translation:barring / precluding
Entered by: Timothy Wood
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

20:36 Dec 27, 2016
German to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Insurance / Excess insurance policy, D&O insurance policy
German term or phrase: frei von
This is a deceptively simple term in the context of an insurance policy. More specifically, the term occurs several times in the "Special Insurance Conditions" (Besondere Versicherungsbedinung) of the excess insurance policy for a company in the aviation industry. Here are a few examples:

Example 1: (Section of policy entitled Other Insured Parties)
"Versicherungsschutz besteht auch für Frau C in ihren Funktionen als Local Agent in *** gemäß dem *** Corporations Act 2001 für die *** Airlines AG und *** Air Lines Ltd., frei von Frau C bis zum *** bekannten Pflichtverletzungen."

My translation:
"Insurance protection exists also for Ms. C*** in her positions as Local Agent in *** pursuant to the *** Corporations Act 2001 for *** AG and *** Air Lines Ltd., free of Ms. C***’s violations known by ***."

Does this "frei von" mean the insurance coverage does not exist for Ms. C's violations that are known by the date? Or the opposite?


Example 2: (Exclusions Section)
"Mit Wirkung vom ****/2008 gilt, frei von den Repräsentanten der Versicherungsnehmerin i.S.v. Ziffer 10.1. **** sowie der in Anspruch genommenen versicherten Person bis zum ****/2008 bekannten Pflichtverletzungen:"

My translation:
"Effective ****/2008, the following applies to violations freely known up until ****/2008 by the insured’s representatives in the sense of Section 10.1. **** as well as the insured person who is held liable:"

Does this "frei von" mean that the insured's representatives are not insured for violations that were known up until the stipulated date?

Example 3: (Exclusions Section)
"Insidertrading
Mit Wirkung vom ****/2008, frei von den Repräsentanten der Versicherungsnehmerin i.S.v. Ziffer 10.1. **** sowie der in Anspruch genommenen versicherten Person bis zum ****/2008 bekannten Pflichtverletzungen, gilt:"

My translation:
"Effective ****/2008, the following applies to violations freely known up until ****/2008 by the insured’s representatives in the sense of Section 10.1. **** as well as the insured person who is held liable:"

How is "frei" being used in these 3 instances that are parallel to each other? It seems that the normal meaning "free of", "devoid of" obfuscates the meaning. Does "frei von" mean "except for"? I'd be grateful for any confirmation or redirection.

Thank you.
Timothy Wood
United States
Local time: 02:13
barring
Explanation:
As suggested at the onset.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2016-12-28 13:19:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, after reading a bit more, 'preclude' may be the better option. However, in some instances, barring is still more than valid. , depending on the sentence structure you use.
Selected response from:

Ramey Rieger
Germany
Local time: 10:13
Grading comment
I appreciate your contribution to my question, Ramey.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
2 +3barring
Ramey Rieger
4except for/ excluding
Martin Ris
3 +1barring
Haigo Salow
3 +1having no knowledge
Michael Martin, MA


Discussion entries: 17





  

Answers


58 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
having no knowledge


Explanation:
There must be a more elegant way of phrasing it but that's my reading of it..

...with Ms. C having no knowledge of any violations prior to DATE

or: ...attesting to having no knowledge of any violations prior to DATE


Michael Martin, MA
United States
Local time: 04:13
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in GermanGerman, Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 37
Notes to answerer
Asker: Please see my note above. Thank you, Martin!


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  David Hollywood: works too Michael and frohe Weihnachten :)
3 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
barring


Explanation:
It seems to me that it refers to the fact that coverage is only provided for Ms. C. for as long as she acts within her duties as an agent for these companies without being in violation of these duties. Once she is in violation of these duties coverage for her ends. For example 1 could it be "barring violations by MS. C. known by..... (by the insurance company)

Haigo Salow
United States
Local time: 04:13
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in GermanGerman
Notes to answerer
Asker: I understand your logic. My sense is that because this is a Directors and Officers insurance policy for a major aviation company, it is precisely certain types of violations that are covered by the insurance policy, but if they were known by Ms. C by a certain date, then they are not covered. Does that line up with your understanding?

Asker: Hi Haigo, Given the overall context of the policy (which I was privy to and unfortunately you could not be due to confidentiality issues), I take it that Ms. C is actually covered for violations, as long as Ms. C had no knowledge of the violations prior to a certain date. So in the interpretation I am suggesting, she may violate certain obligations after a certain period, and they will in fact be covered because coverage of those violations is the subject of the insurance policy itself. But the suggestion "barring" is itself appropriate. Thank you so much.


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Ramey Rieger: I would agree if I hadn't posted the suggestion in the discussion box already.
1 min

agree  David Hollywood: this is a nice interpretation and rendering IMO
2 hrs

neutral  writeaway: agree with Ramey's suggestion
5 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

12 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5 peer agreement (net): +3
barring


Explanation:
As suggested at the onset.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 16 hrs (2016-12-28 13:19:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, after reading a bit more, 'preclude' may be the better option. However, in some instances, barring is still more than valid. , depending on the sentence structure you use.

Ramey Rieger
Germany
Local time: 10:13
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 15
Grading comment
I appreciate your contribution to my question, Ramey.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  writeaway: fair's fair
1 hr
  -> solidarity trumps! Good manners a must for cyber communications

agree  Wendy Streitparth: Indeed - it happens all too often.
2 hrs
  -> Yes, happened to me, too way back when. Live & learn

agree  Björn Vrooman: Easy choice for me. Whether or not you were first, Haigo's explanation is simply not correct, IMO. Also agree with your 2nd comment: If "barring" winds up as "if there is no" + Timothy's sentence, you may effectively end the contract (the German doesn't).
11 hrs
  -> Keep the mania moving, Björn.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day 23 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
except for/ excluding


Explanation:
Despite the lengthy discussions, I think this would be the better/ more accurate translation.

This is dealing with exclusions to insurance coverage. Specifically, what's excluded in the first example are duty violations known to Ms. C as of a certain date [presumably, the start date of coverage]. The same logic applies to the other examples.

None of these examples specify whose violations of duty triggers the exclusion, although presumably they are those of the insured person. But, they do specify whose knowledge of a violation triggers the exclusion, namely, that of the insured person and her representatives.

I think the translation should follow the same logic.

'Barring' and 'precluding' are too broad, in my view, because they imply a bar to insurance altogether (although, precluding less so than barring).

One revised example:

"Insurance coverage also applies to Ms. C*** in her positions as Local Agent in *** pursuant to the *** Corporations Act 2001 for *** AG and *** Air Lines Ltd., except for/excluding derelictions/violations of duty known to Ms. C*** as of ***."


Example sentence(s):
  • Insurance coverage also applies to Ms. C*** in her positions as Local Agent in *** pursuant to the *** Corporations Act 2001 for *** AG and *** Air Lines Ltd., except for/excluding derelictions/violations of duty known to Ms. C*** as of ***.
Martin Ris
United States
Local time: 04:13
Native speaker of: Native in GermanGerman, Native in EnglishEnglish
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:

Your current localization setting

English

Select a language

Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search