Both the name of the policy and the policy itself indicate that the objective purpose of the policy was to insure Media Maven From all ("Everything for Business") is an insurance event that may occur as an employer of employees and as an owner of equipment and offices. The contractual engagement is also intended to provide insurance protection against third parties - including bodily injury - in an insurance event as defined in the policy (see the definition there), subject to exceptions and exceptions.
Policy Exception
- As mentioned, Ayalon rejected the insurance coverage because it claimed that the liability was excluded in the policy, as an exception to the "sinkhole"".
The exception relating to sinkholes is included in the chapter "Additional Exceptions and Conditions for All Chapters of the Policy" (pp. 141-143 of the Policy, pp. 157-159 of the Maven Media Exhibits File, and not in the framework of Chapter 15, which deals with liability to a third party, although other exceptions were noted there). This chapter includes "additional limitations to the insurer's liability - which apply to all the chapters of the policy. These exceptions will apply in addition to and beyond the exceptions, which were detailed in the exceptions section in each chapter separately. This policy does not cover loss or damage or expenses of any kind, caused directly or indirectly by any of the following factors or arising out of or related to them, without regard to any other factor, even if there was another factor or other cause that contributed, whether simultaneously or in continuation thereof, to that loss or damage: 1. War..... 13. Liability and/or loss and/or damage caused directly and/or indirectly as a result of the appearance and/or formation of pits or soil subsidence known as "sinkholes".
- When an insurer claims that there is an exception to the insurance coverage defined in the policy, it bears the burden of proof of the existence of the exception (Civil Appeal 453/11 M.S. Aluminum Products Ltd. v. Arie Insurance Company Ltd., [Nevo] (August 21,2013)). In this regard, it should be remembered that the limitation or limitation of insurance coverage is also subject toThe Insurance Contract Law, 1981 (hereinafter: "The Insurance Contract Law"). When the insurer claims the existence of an exception that limits the scope of the insurance coverage, it is determined that this exception should be interpreted in a narrow manner in a manner consistent with the purpose of the policy (see, for example, Civil Appeal 1446/22 Ayalon Insurance Company Ltd. v. Clal Insurance Company Ltd. [Nevo] (7.5.2023); Civil Appeal 2016/00 Rosenzwit v. Rosenblit [Nevo] (May 28,2002) It is not sufficient to present any reasonable interpretation of the exception, and the insurer must show that its existence is the only reasonable interpretation of the exemption provision in the circumstances of the case, especially when the limitation may deny compensation for bodily injury (Civil Appeal 11081/02 Dolev Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kadosh, IsrSC 62(2) 573 (2007)). However, it was held that "an explicit stipulation that qualifies the insurance coverage, to which the parties agreed, must be respected" (Additional Civil Hearing 5325/19 Picali, above, in paragraph 68 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice H. Meltzer).
- Here the exception was defined as "...Pits or soil sinkholes known as sinkholes".
According to the halakha, "the policy should be interpreted according to The ordinary, simple, and logical literal meaning of her words. This interpretation must be acceptable to the heart and reason, equal to every soul, and consistent with the needs of daily life, all on the assumption that the parties to the engagement sought to give expression to their true intentions in the words they chose in the drafting process" (emphasis in original; Civil Appeal 453/11 M.S. Aluminum Products Ltd. v. Arie Insurance Company Ltd., paragraph 27 of the [Nevo] judgment (August 21,2013)).