As determined in the same proceeding (in paragraph 10 of the judgment):
"It clearly emerges that his claim is not a claim for compensation for bodily injury, but rather a claim for compensation for the respondents' unlawful refusal, according to him, to draw up an insurance policy for the applicant, or for the lack of proper supervision by some of them in its drafting."
Similarly, in our case, the plaintiff defined the claim in its title as a "monetary claim" in the amount of ILS 29,000. In paragraph 19 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants were obligated to compensate him for days of incapacity and permanent disability "in accordance with the insurance policy". On the basis of these arguments, I am convinced that the claim in question is not a claim for bodily injury, but rather a monetary claim for payment of a defined and fixed sum, which he claims is entitled to as insurance benefits. This determination is not affected by the definition of the "insurance case", which in this case is an event in which the plaintiff suffered bodily injury.
(A similar decision was also given in Civil Case (Shalom Herzliya) 15363-08-12, Gabriel Perl v. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem [February 10, 2014]).
- We can also learn about the classification of the claim by analogy to another case, in which a similar principle is evident: in the case of a civil appeal 10471/07, Gur Israeli v. Phoenix Insurance Company in a Tax Appeal [August 19, 2009], it was determined that the rate of the fee and the date of its payment depend on the classification of the claim. The court ruled that the term "claim for compensation for bodily injury" in the Fees Regulations should be given a narrow meaning, according to which only a claim filed on tort grounds is a claim for compensation for bodily injury.
From this a similar conclusion is required in our case, that a contractual claim for insurance benefits under an insurance policy that derives from bodily injury caused to the plaintiff does not constitute a "claim for compensation for bodily injury" but rather a monetary claim for a fixed amount.
- The rule is that an arbitration clause that requires arbitration in any dispute relating to the contractual relationship between the parties must be interpreted extensively. It was further held inThe Katz affair, it was held that even tortious causes that are not directly related to the contractual cause to which the arbitration agreement applies, should be submitted to arbitration.
Accordingly, I accept the club's position, according to which the authority of the internal judicial institutions of the basketball association or association to hear the dispute as defined in this lawsuit has not been denied.
- Section 5(c) The Arbitration Law instructs that the court may not delay the proceedings if it sees a special reason that the dispute should not be heard in arbitration.
However , Sections 10-11 of the Sports Law establish a statutory obligation to conduct arbitration proceedings. It was determined that the court would delay proceedings where a claim is filed to it that the Sports Law applies to it and that meets the conditions of the bylaws - as a positive provision that does not leave discretion in the hands of the court.