National Insurance Institute (Be’er Sheva) 47433-02-25 Talia Tatiana Risin – National Insurance Institute

Judgment

1. We have before us a claim filed by the plaintiff for recognition of a road accident that occurred to her on August 19,2024 as a work accident, within the meaning of section 79 of the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-1995 (hereinafter - the Law).

Background and Proceedings in the Rabbinical Courts:

2. In the claim form she submitted to the defendant (P/1), the plaintiff claimed that on August 19,2024, when she was on her way home from work, she had a car accident. In a letter from the defendant's claims clerk, dated September 26,2024, her claim was rejected.  This is why the claim before us was filed.
3. In the plaintiff's main testimony affidavit, it was claimed as follows: "On August 19,2024, when I was returning from work at 17:54, the Waze took me in a different way due to the traffic jams. At or around 6:49 P.M., when I was driving my car and stopped at a crosswalk to give the right of way.  When suddenly a third-party vehicle collided with me with a rear mechanism with great force and as a result hit my car.  As a result, I suffered bodily injuries (hereinafter "the accident").  It should be noted that I was on my way home from work...  I will note that every time I need to leave with my car, I activate the WAZE software...It should be noted that in the proximity of the times and when I leave the workplace, it is possible to determine the causal connection between leaving my job and my home...  I would like to clarify that in light of the above facts, I have proven my claim, the accident occurred when I was removed from work due to a change in Waze in the fixed route due to a traffic jam."
4. 00 On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself testified. No witnesses were summoned on behalf of the defendant.

0

5. At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff was given time to submit additional documents, including a location report for her mobile phone from the day of the accident. In the plaintiff's statement of September 14,2025, additional evidence was submitted, but no request for a location order was filed.  In the court's decision, the plaintiff was asked to clarify whether she intended to attach a location report as well.  Only afterwards did the plaintiff file a request for an order for the cellular company to provide a location report to her mobile phone from the day of the accident, and in accordance with the order that was issued, a location report was submitted[1].  The parties summarized their arguments in writing.

Discussion and Decision:

6. After hearing the plaintiff's testimony, reviewing the evidence, including those submitted after the evidentiary hearing, and considering the arguments of the parties, we have reached the conclusion that the claim should be dismissed.
7. Section 79 of the Law defines a work accident as follows: "An accident that occurred during his work and as a result of his work for his employer or on his behalf, and in the case of a self-employed worker - while he was engaged in his occupation and as a result of his occupation in his occupation." Section 80(1) of the Law expands the definition set out in Section 79 of the Law, to cases in which the accident occurred on the way to work. Thus, the section states that an accident is considered a work accident even if "it occurred while the insured was traveling or going to work from his residence or from the place where he is staying, even if it is not his residence, from work to his residence or from one place of work to another, and as a result of his travel or walk." Section 81(a) of the Law, which deals with "interruption and deviation", states that an accident that occurred while driving or walking in the circumstances stated in section 80(1) "shall not be considered an accident at work if there is a real break or deviation from the usual way while driving or walking, when the interruption or deviation was not for the purpose involved in fulfilling the insured's duties to his employer...".
8. Although it was proven in our case that on August 19,2024, the plaintiff was involved in a road accident[2], her claim that the accident occurred on the customary route from her work to her residence was concealed.
9. The plaintiff did not specify in her affidavit the place of the accident, her address of residence and the address of her place of work. Details of this were given in her interrogation in the court, according to which the plaintiff lives on Shevet Dan Street in the city of Ashdod (p.  3, s.  38), her place of work is in the Re'em Industrial Park (p.  1, s.  30) and the accident occurred on 9 Rogozin Street in Ashdod (p.  12, s.  12).  The plaintiff also did not specify in her affidavit the customary route from her place of work to her home.  Attached to the exhibits file submitted by the defendant was a letter from the claims clerk, dated August 29,2024 (N/3), in which the plaintiff was asked to explain her presence at the scene of the accident, taking into account that the place of the accident was not on the route between her workplace and her home.  In a response sent to this letter, which was handwritten on the same document, the plaintiff replied that Waze had instructed her to travel through the northern entrance to the city of Ashdod.  The plaintiff also attached to her reply a map marking the route from her place of work to her place of residence, on the northern road leading to the northern entrance to the city of Ashdod.  In the plaintiff's cross-examination, she was shown a map on which her place of work was marked, her place of residence and the place where the accident occurred, as well as a travel route that passes through the northern entrance to Ashdod (P/7), in a manner that corresponds to the route presented by the plaintiff in her reply to the claims clerk.  When the plaintiff was asked about the usual travel route from her work to her place of residence, she replied that due to the traffic congestion in the city of Ashdod, she usually travels according to the travel route outlined by the Waze app, and that she did so on the day of the accident.  The plaintiff also said: "Sometimes he sends me on the way to the southern entrance to Ashdod, sometimes the northern entrance is very dependent on traffic" When the court noted to the plaintiff that according to the map that was presented, it seemed that the correct way was the southern entrance, and the plaintiff was asked whether, nevertheless, this was the route that Waze had instructed her, the plaintiff replied: "Yes, yes, this is not the first time that he has taken me through the northern entrance" (p.  8, paras.  34-39).  Thus, the plaintiff confirmed that on the day of the accident she was driving on the route marked on the map submitted during her interrogation (P/7).  Later in her interrogation, the plaintiff claimed that she did not remember exactly the route in which she traveled, but when she was asked by the court whether it was possible to reach the place where the accident occurred on the route that passes through the southern entrance, the plaintiff replied that she did not think it was (p.  9, paras.  18-20).

Copied from the prophecy of the Ottoman settlement [old version] 1916, but according to the location report that was submitted, on the day of the accident at 18:16 (the time when the plaintiff was allegedly on her way home), the plaintiff's mobile phone was found in Gan Yavne.  An examination of the map shows that Gan Yavne is not located at all on the route shown on the map.  Even if we assume that Gan Yavne is located on an alternative travel route, which passes through the southern entrance, and that on the day of the accident the plaintiff traveled on this route (although this is not the plaintiff's version), as the plaintiff stated in her testimony, this route does not pass through the place where the accident occurred.  The plaintiff, as stated, confirmed this in her testimony and a perusal of the map also shows this, since the plaintiff's residence is located south of the southern entrance to the city of Ashdod, while in order to reach the scene of the accident it was necessary to drive in a northwest direction.