adekvat

18:16 Sep 3, 2013 

Now we know this involves the 'unreasonable' insurance co. against the little guy, or ... so my first thought was justified, but when I looked for some reference in this context I found ... 'reasonable', as in http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b323138-e029-... Commensurate still works, but is less 'legalese'.

14:59 Sep 3, 2013 

My sincere apologies for not having involved myself in this sooner. Thank you all for taking the time to have your say and contribute to a really good discussion.

If I can perhaps give you a little more context - the insurance company is alleging that the policyholder took actions that were disproportionate to the extent of the flooding, i.e., it incurred costs that were unreasonable and which the insurance company is disputing the payment of.

This is quite a long text, and I have used "commensurate" for now, but there is time to change it if needs be.

18:02 Sep 2, 2013 

Neutral seems to mean non-committal. The consequences are 'non-commensurate' (non-proportionate) to or with something - and doesn't explain the flooding.

17:49 Sep 2, 2013 

Here we are speculating where the answer lies in Richard's, text. I mentioned commensurate as neutral in the context given, meaning it could work both ways in this situation -- too much or too little action by the insured. That neutral and not a neutral peer comment!

As for cuasality, I learned it as 'proximate cause' which is much less philosophical than 'Adequate causation' in my understading of Eng usage. Kind of like comparing affixing to spiking! ;-)

17:25 Sep 2, 2013 

Desperately fighting a rearguard action, I would requote a Swedish law dictionary:

adekvans: adekvat kausalitet – sådan kausalitet som är rättsligt relevant. Man kan säga, att det föreligger A. mellan t. ex. en viss handling och en uppkommen skada, om skadan är en beräknelig (cue: Charles P.'s recent question) verkan av handlingen; endast en sådan handling kan medföra straff- el- skadeståndsansvar.

Juridikens termer, Almqvist & Wiksell

17:19 Sep 2, 2013 

...according to Dickens is an ass and I am in no way adequately qualified to approach it. Even those who are seemingly qualified often end up in a quagmire.

15:11 Sep 2, 2013 

Assuming adekvat has a PRECISE legal meaning in Swedish, I wonder whether you - or Charles P. if around - can help us in general, and the asker in particular, understand the 'adequate' causation test in Swedish insurance and law. In the premises = in this instance, the consequences seem to be not proximate enough to make the policyholder liable for the flooding.

14:57 Sep 2, 2013 

..about what the insurance company was thinking is not the translator's job. The word 'adekvat' is a little vague in the context and therefore 'commensurate' (considering all its synonyms) appears to be a suitable translation.

14:55 Sep 2, 2013 

Deane, as you are legally qualified, albeit in the US, perhaps you can clarify if there is in Swedish - as in German - an Äquivalenz /equivalent counterpart to adekvat kausalitet, namely ...följder inte adekvata... connotes a causation test which you must have come across in tort, contract or insurance law.

14:20 Sep 2, 2013 

On first reading it seemed that the relationship was the insurance co thought the individual's actions as overproportionate. But the Swe sentence seems to say (to me) that the actions were not enough. What am I missing? -- commensurate is neutral in this respect.