Therefore, the claim should be dismissed.
The level of damage
- Taking into account the conclusion I have reached above, I will briefly discuss the claims regarding the level of damage.
- The monetary relief that is the subject of the lawsuit consisted of two types of damages:
- the costs of relocating the ship from the port of Ashdod to Ashkelon, in the amount of ILS 610,570, which was paid by Phoenix to Paz, by virtue of an insurance policy (along with appraiser's fees on behalf of Phoenix);
- Damages to the connection, which were caused to IEC, at a cost of ILS 917,856.
Claims about the costs of copying the recharge
- There is no dispute that following the events that are the subject of the lawsuit, it was necessary to relocate the ship's loading place to Ashkelon, and there is no dispute that this involved costs incurred by Paz. It should be noted that the appraiser on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Yoram Golan, also estimated the costs in his opinion at approximately ILS 610,000.
There is no dispute that Phoenix paid Paz a total of 610,570 for these costs.
- The defendant's argument is that for these costs, Paz received payment from both the Phoenix and the IEC, while in this case it was claimed that an invoice produced by Paz for IEC, ending with digits 350 (N/5), proves payment by IEC in the amount of ILS 733,330, and a comparison of this invoice with another invoice ending in digits 321 (included in Exhibit A/1), proves payment by IEC to Paz for the same damage for which Paz received payment from the Phoenix company. Hence, the defendant claims that Phoenix seeks to charge it with payment for which Paz has already received compensation directly from IEC, and in fact was compensated with double.
- I did not find any substance in the defendant's arguments in this matter.
A perusal of the invoices ending in numbers 321 and 350 does not conclude, to the extent necessary, that these are payments for the same cost paid by Phoenix to Paz as a result of the event that is the subject of the claim, and even the record appearing in the payment confirmation of January 5,2016 (part of Exhibit N/5), regarding "damage to the cluster connector" (for which ILS 149,116 was paid), does not constitute sufficient evidence in this regard.