According to Prof. Friedman, piping is a process that can result in sinkholes (p. 85 of the protocol). According to him, the development of sinkholes under pools is very common (p. 78 of the protocol).
Prof. Friedman, an Ayalon expert, also refers to the dictionary definition of Ibn Shushan (p. 68 of the transcript) and as his definition: "the collapse of the roof of the ground into a vacuum" (p. 76 of the transcript).
Interpretation of the Exception
- After considering the experts' arguments, I found that In the absence of an explicit definition of the term "sinkhole" in the policyAyalon's position that the term should be interpreted according to its position should not be accepted. For a number of reasons.
First, according to the opinion of Adv. Lichter, who is the witness on behalf of Ayalon, and is the one responsible for approving the insurance claims (see p. 120 of the minutes of November 30,2025), it is necessary to check whether the relevant exception exists Based on a geological opinion (See transcript at p. 118 and at p. 120), contrary to the opinion of Attorney General Ayalon, who believes that the definition should be examined according to "what is called a sinkhole in the general public" or according to the Academy of the Hebrew Language, and not necessarily according to the scientific definition (see paragraph 20 of the summaries).
Since the only geologist who testified and gave an opinion was the expert on behalf of Media Maven (the expert on behalf of Ayalon was a civil engineer, even if he studied geology as part of his studies), it is already for this reason that the approach of Media Maven in the case before us should be accepted, according to which it is not a sinkhole and therefore the exception does not exist.
Certainly, there is no positive definition in the policy, nor is there a reference according to any index to interpret (such as the reference to the Levi-Yitzhak price list for vehicle appraisals, or the "Hadas" price list for the cost of building houses, a representative gate, etc.). Therefore, even if it were not for Adv. Lichter's testimony that it should be examined according to the geological-scientific interpretation, there would have been room to examine according to what objective criterion the wording of the exception was, and since we are dealing with a geological term, it is logical to turn to an expert in this field.