1

I'm drafting a somewhat official document, and I can't quite think of the right word here:

All employees are covered under an occupational hazard insurance, which would cover any liabilities arising from A, B, or C.

The sentence sounds kind of awkward because cover is used twice. Is there a more appropriate word I can use instead of the second cover, something like mitigate? (I know mitigate wouldn't be appropriate, just an example)

Ankush Jain
  • 141
  • 4
    How about "All employees are protected by an occupational hazard insurance..." to reduce the use of cover and add a bit more agency/proactiveness. – John Go-Soco Jan 03 '19 at 08:39
  • @JohnGo-Soco That works. I'm getting this nagging feeling that there exists a word that would be a very natural fit for the second 'cover', but I might be entirely wrong. I'll wait to see if someone can recall that magic word, otherwise I'll go with protected. – Ankush Jain Jan 03 '19 at 08:48
  • 1
    Cover is a good choice, because that's what insurance does. – John Go-Soco Jan 03 '19 at 09:10
  • 1
    I agree with @JohnGo-Soco’s comment: the second use of cover works well. If you want to change one instance, consider changing the first. But with legal terminology involved, tread carefully. – Lawrence Jan 03 '19 at 09:24
  • @Lawrence I see, that makes sense. The legal implications of the wording aren't a big concern, it's only a semi-official document and not something a lawyer should be doing. – Ankush Jain Jan 03 '19 at 19:53

2 Answers2

1

If you want to change the second cover, I suggest the following:

All employees are covered under an occupational hazard insurance, which would apply to any liabilities arising from A, B, or C.

However, I can't speak to any required legal terminology.

As another note, I find the use of would to be strange—even in the original version. Surely it's true that it does (cover or apply to) A, B, or C. Not just that it would.

In that sense, I suggest a further change beyond the original scope of your question:

All employees are covered under an occupational hazard insurance, which applies to any liabilities arising from A, B, or C.

Jason Bassford
  • 38,040
  • Thanks for the input on the 'would'. The actual sentence in my document is a question: "I request information on: a. Whether all employees are covered under an insurance, which would apply to liabilities arising from A, B, or C". I feel that in this construction "would" is more appropriate, thoughts? – Ankush Jain Jan 03 '19 at 19:55
  • 1
    @AnkushJain The would makes more sense in that context. – Jason Bassford Jan 04 '19 at 02:14
1

Cater to can be an option. It means "to provide what is wanted or needed by someone / something".

All employees are covered under an occupational hazard insurance, which would cater to any liabilities arising from A, B, or C.
Explorer
  • 450