With regard to the dispute between the defendant and the Ayalon company, I found it to be determined that the statements and actions of the defendant's employees were not carried out in circumstances that amount to malice or a deliberate act that would exclude the incident from the insurance policy in which the defendant was insured by the Ayalon company, and therefore the notice should be accepted.
- In her statement of defense, the defendant claimed that the defendant had issued an ultimatum that he would not continue the trip if the plaintiff joined, due to her un"modest" dress. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the statement of claim and to add him as an additional defendant, who, in light of the defendant's claims, was wrongful together with her or aided/solicitated her, and therefore the court allowed the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim. The defendant did not file a notice against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that she requested his inclusion as a defendant after his details were provided to her by the defendant. In these circumstances, I accept the plaintiffs' position that the defendant's addition to the statement of claim does not constitute the plaintiff's admission of the acts committed by the defendant, but rather by virtue of the defendant's claims that he has a part in the chain that led to those acts for which the claim was filed.
- On behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff's affidavit was submitted; on behalf of the defendant, the affidavits of Mr. Leonid Kushnir (the defendant's manager) and Mr. Luban Alexander (the ambulance driver) were submitted; on behalf of the defendant, the defendant's affidavit was submitted, and on behalf of Ayalon Company, the affidavit of Mr. Tamir Herzno was submitted. The declarants testified before me.
- The plaintiff's testimony and the defendant's testimony were coherent and intertwined and provide a complete picture of the conduct of the driver and manager on behalf of the defendant. From the totality of the testimonies, it can be determined that the defendant's driver refused to put the plaintiff in the ambulance after he concluded that the defendant, being an ultra-Orthodox man, would not agree to a woman dressed "bare" to join the trip, without clarifying the matter with him.
The plaintiff refused to accept the decision and turned to the driver's manager, who also insisted on the demand that this be a change of clothes, conditional on her getting into the ambulance without offering any solution that would allow the plaintiff to join the trip.