Menorah Company's Claims
On October 31, 2019, Goren filed a notice to a third party against Menorah Insurance Company Ltd., in which he claimed that he was insured under a professional liability policy at Menorah and that the company had shirked its obligation to assume insurance liability. Goren argued that the allegations leveled against him in the statement of claim include allegations relating to alleged professional negligence on his part. Although he denies the plaintiffs' claim that he served as their attorney in the framework of the transactions that are the subject of the lawsuit, since the plaintiffs claim otherwise, their arguments should be adhered to as a basis for examining the issue of his representation by the insurance company.
In the statement of defense filed by Menorah Company, it was initially argued that defendant 4 is certainly not insured by Menorah Company, and that at most the claims can be raised in the realm of the alleged liability between the transfer of the Goren hearing place and the Menorah Company. In any event, the professional liability policy covers the activity of someone who served as a lawyer and not private business activity as a real estate seller. In the agreements entered into between the Goren Hearing Venue and Plaintiffs 1-2, it was explicitly stated that the Goren Hearing Venue was not their representative, and in the agreements signed by Plaintiffs 3-7 they were represented by the Goren Hearing Venue and not by the Goren Hearing Place. In any event, even if it is found to determine that Goren represented the plaintiffs, or some of them, the provision of legal services to the purchasers when the seller serves as their representative at the same time, amounts to a conflict of interest and a breach of trust that is excluded in the exception 6.1.2 to the policy. This, when Goren had a personal financial interest in these transactions, as he was the controlling shareholder of defendant 4. In addition, in accordance with exception 6.5 to the policy, a self-obligation taken upon itself by the insured is excluded. Moreover. It was argued that the plaintiff was concerned with prima facie fraud on the part of the wrongdoer of the Goren hearing, including by way of evading the payment of the tax imposed on these transactions. For this reason, in light of the provision of section 26 of the Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981, and taking into account the exception 6.1.2 to the policy, the provisions of the policy do not apply in our case. Menorah further argued that Goren was aware of the realization of the restitution clause as early as 2016, and as a result, he should have known that a lawsuit would be filed against him. In these circumstances, in light of the provision of Section 16 of the Insurance Contract Law, and taking into account Section 6.9 of the Policy, insurance coverage for a risk that has passed was denied. It was also claimed that there was a statute of limitations and a delay in filing the claim.