Insurance Tips
Back to Tips Index | Courtroom Sagas
A.
Mr. P had been insured by an insurance company called "Generali" which
stopped its activities in Israel. His agent switched cover to the "Illit" insurance
company and sent his client a copy of the new policy. Three months later,
the client decided to cancel the policy on the grounds that he had found
cheaper and better coverage elsewhere, and also that he had never signed
any documents for the new policy. On these grounds, he also refused to
pay for the four months that the Illit policy had been in force.
Illit sued him for non-payment.
Judge Noa Grossman (Tel Aviv court, January 2001) gave the following
judgment:
Even though all the techrequirements of a new policy (i.e. signing the
new proposal form) had not been met, nevertheless, the policy had been
in force for four months. If there had been a claim in that time, it
is reasonable to assume that the client would have expected to be paid
out in full. Therefore the judge decided that the four months premium
had to be paid to Illit. (If the policy had been cancelled immediately upon being received, then the case would have been different).
Moral: If you want to cancel your insurance, do it as close to renewal as possible or in the case of a new policy, make sure immediately that the policy is correct and relevant. Whatever the case, don’t cancel until you have set up insurance somewhere else.
B.
Yitzchak L. insured his car with Sahar insurance company. Last summer,
he went to the beach in Tel Aviv. He locked his car and left the keys
in a small bag. While going in for a swim, he left the bag on the beach
and asked two friends to "keep an eye on it". After a refreshing
half-hour in the water, he returned to find that his bag had also "gone
surfing", and disappeared (and with the bag, also his car!)
Sahar refused to pay on the grounds that Yitzchak had been negligent. They claimed that even though he had activated the alarm, this implied that reasonable care should be taken with the keys as well. In addition, they claimed that leaving the keys on the beach was in violation of the insurance clause to lessen the potential damage whenever possible.
Judge Ilan Shilo’s decision (Bat Yam court, February 2001) was that even though Yitzchak had been somewhat negligent, the policy only required activation of the alarm and did not refer to the keys. Therefore the claim fell within the jurisdiction of the policy. Regarding the lessening of damage, this only applies after the damage occurs and not before, and therefore this claim was not relevant to the case.
Sahar was ordered to pay the damages in full.
Moral: Never leave your bags unattended!