Section 25(b1) of the Contracts Law also stipulates that "a contract that is given to different interpretations and one of the parties to the contract has priority in shaping its terms, an interpretation against it is preferable to an interpretation in its favor." Section 25(c) of the Contracts Law states: "Expressions and clauses in a contract that are customarily used in contracts of the same type shall be interpreted according to the meaning known to them in those contracts."
Copied from Nevo
- With regard to insurance policies, it was determined that "given the consumer and uniform nature of insurance contracts - including the absence of individual negotiations and the differences in economic and professional power between the parties - the interpretive answer will usually not be found in the subjective intentions of the parties, and therefore it will be necessary to address the objective purpose of the insurance contract, i.e., "the goals, interests and purposes of the type or type that the contract is intended to fulfill", in view of "reasonable and fair" parties. (Civil Appeal 3634/20 Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd. v. Kidishman paragraph 38 of the [Nevo] judgment (July 26,2022); Civil Appeal Authority 6388/19 The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hoffman [Nevo] (June 22,2023) and more).
The case law further determined that special weight should be given to the legitimate interests of the insured, and that it is appropriate to attribute to the arrangement the purpose of promoting the best interests of the insured. This is done both in view of the fact that control over the drafting of the contract is in the hands of the insurance company (see, for example, Civil Appeal Authority 6388/19, supra), and in view of the rules of interpretation that are appropriate for consumer contracts, and insurance contracts in particular, which attach special importance to the protection of the reasonable expectations of the consumer-insured (see there and other municipal applications 8336/17 Reuven v. Super-Dosh Ltd. [Nevo] (May 15,2022)).
- The policy was attached to Maven Media Exhibits' portfolio. The policy, titled "Everything for Business" (see Appendix 2 to the affidavit), was purchased by the CEO of Media Maven, Mr. Yuval Mani through the Degani Giora Insurance Agency (see Appendix 1 to his affidavit, the policy list). The name of the insurance policy. As part of the policy, in chapter 15 thereof, there is "liability insurance to a third party" (chapter 15, pp. 95-102 of the policy, pp. 111-118 of the affidavit).
It was not claimed, neither in Mr. Mani's affidavit nor in his testimony that individual negotiations were conducted with the insurance agent regarding the policy. All that was stated was that after the incident, he approached Ayalon to receive insurance coverage in light of the policy - "for a customer who insures himself and his employees as required." According to him, the Ayalon insurance company should have taken on the insurance coverage, and the rejection of the coverage "is not good faith conduct."