So far with regard to the circumstances of the incident that establish the compensation but also have implications for its scope.
- The additional reason for the compensation for the low standard is the reason that there was no prior written demand prior to the filing of the claim.
As stated, at first the impression was given that the plaintiffs had approached the defendant in a letter by an attorney, when at the beginning of the statement of claim it was noted that "in light of El Al's announcement that it does not intend to compensate the plaintiffs for its actions and negligence on this flight, there is no choice but to file this statement of claim in order to compensate." Afterwards, she detailed in paragraphs 13-14 of the statement of claim: "After the plaintiffs landed in Israel, instead of providing them with proper compensation for the flight cancellation and the tremendous mental anguish experienced by each and every one of the plaintiffs, EL AL offered compensation in the form of a voucher for the purchase of future flight tickets with El Al. In addition, El Al demanded that the expenses be transferred to it for its "examination"... In light of all the above, there is no choice but to file this lawsuit" when the court was referred to a copy of the "notice" they received upon disembarking from the plane, as claimed. However, the notice to which the plaintiffs were referring is not a notice in response to their request, but rather a letter that was given to the plaintiffs upon disembarking from the plane. In other words, this is not a situation in which the plaintiffs submitted a written request for statutory compensation, exemplary compensation and reimbursement of expenses, and then it rejected their demand for compensation, except for an agreement to compensate beyond the letter of the law with a voucher of $300 for the next flight, as well as an agreement to indemnify the plaintiffs and reimburse their expenses in exchange for receipts, but they did not submit receipts and chose to file a claim that also includes the reimbursement of expenses component, and therefore according to this line, the question arose as to whether this constitutes non-compliance with the written requirement and exhaustion The procedures that must be taken before filing the claim and as such, when the law requires it, and therefore their request for exemplary compensation should be rejected. Therefore, I am of the opinion that even where the plaintiffs did apply in writing, but it was evident that it was verbal and outward, and it seems that they would have filed their claim in any case when they really believed that they were entitled to compensation beyond the reimbursement of expenses, and just as the defendant's refusal to pay statutory compensation is not attributed to her obligation as detailed above, so too should it not be attributed to the plaintiffs' obligation - then, Considering the result I have reached, if they had contacted it again and attached receipts or attached them in the first place (and not in a way that was attached to the statement of claim as one whole night for 58 plaintiffs) - they would have received refunds in a way that would have ostensibly made the claim redundant (since the defendant agreed to compensation in the amount of a discount of $300 for the next flight and it was possible to examine a compromise in the embodiment of the voucher into a monetary sum, given that the cost to the defendant for the voucher is lower, but taking into account the amount of the sentence at the end of the day, It seems that this would have made the claim redundant). However, it is clear that these are conclusions that were born in retrospect.