Notwithstanding the failures of the defendant's employees in relation to the plaintiff and the lack of any protection for their conduct, with regard to the insurance policy, I am persuaded that the decision to leave the defendant in the transportation vehicle and to refuse to board the plaintiff was in accordance with the Corona guidelines, i.e., due to distance from the defendant's place of residence and in order not to leave him outside the ambulance, when the plaintiff's home is nearby.
- The defendant argued that in the definition of an insurance case in the policy, it was determined "except for an act or omission of the insured in a knowingly violation of the law, failure to comply or knowingly deviation..." Hence, the intention of the drafter of the policy (Ayalon Company) was to exclude cases that were done intentionally and not in good faith and/or negligence, and its position to distinguish between medical negligence and administrative negligence should not be accepted.
There is substance to this argument of the defendant. The defendant's liability in this lawsuit is by virtue of the fact that its employees did not bother to check with the defendant at all and acted on the assumption that he would object or object to the plaintiff getting into the ambulance because of her "exposed" clothing, and they acted in this state of affairs, in violation of the law. For even if the defendant had made such a demand, they were absolutely prohibited from complying with it. Therefore, the defendant's employees created a false factual representation, which they attributed to the defendant, and in the framework of which they acted. Therefore, their actions should be viewed as a negligent act in terms of the insurance policy, and therefore there is insurance coverage in the circumstances of the incident.
It has not escaped my notice that the driver and his manager did not understand the plaintiff's medical condition and the defendant proceeds to make this decision. Taking into account the fact that the decision was made in the shadow of the Corona guidelines, and given the erroneous factual basis on which the decision was made, it is clear that this is not a deliberate act committed by the plaintiff's employees, as stipulated in clause 4(b) of the policy for the purpose of determining that the circumstances of the incident are excluded from the policy.