12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
On the other hand, Media Maven claimed that the incident was caused by a planning failure and the collapse of the bottom of the pool into a cave and not due to a sinkhole that constitutes a natural phenomenon, and that Ayalon added the exception in renewing the policy without lawful notification.
- As part of the proceedings, Media Maven relied on the insurance policy, on the testimonies of its managers - the CEO and owner of the company, Mr. Yuval Mani, and the shareholder, Mr. Dor Melion, and on the opinion and testimony of the geologist Dr. Moshe Yarkoni, who determined that this was an engineering failure and subversion of the land, and not a professional geological sinkhole. Ayalon, for its part, relied on the sweeping wording of the exception that denies coverage, on media reports calling the incident the "sinkhole disaster", and on the opinion and testimony of the engineer Prof. Sam Friedman, as well as the testimony of the Director of the Property and Liability Department, Adv. Efrat Lichter Anzenberg. Ayalon also argued that Media Maven's claim regarding the lack of notification of the exception constitutes an expansion of an improper front that she explicitly opposed all along.
An attempt to bring Media Maven and Ayalon to an agreement, at all stages of the hearing, was unsuccessful. Therefore, after the submission of the parties' summaries, the time came for a decision.
The Policy - Insurance Contract
- An insurance policy is first and foremost a contract between the insurer and the insured. This contractual engagement is intended to provide the insured with protection against the occurrence of certain damage, as defined in the insurance contract. This contract expresses the degree of obligation that the insurance company was willing to undertake, and the scope of the risks - the limits of the risk - that it undertook to cover when concluding the contract in relation to the events arising from the realization of such risk (Civil Appeal Authority 9849/17 Pikali v. Hachshara Insurance Company Ltd. [Nevo] (4.6.2019); Additional Civil Hearing 5325/19 Hachshara Insurance Company Ltd. v. Picali [Nevo] (7.7.2021)).
The policy - the insurance contract - must be interpreted in accordance with the usual rules of interpretation applicable in contract law. Section 25 of the Contracts Law (General Part), 5733-1973 (hereinafter: "the Contracts Law"), which relates to the "interpretation of a contract", states that a contract shall be interpreted according to the intentions of the parties from the contract and the circumstances of the matter, taking into account, inter alia, the relationship of the parties, information gaps, the degree of detail of the contract, the professional experience and legal representation of the parties.