|
Insurance Fraud meant to Reduce the Applicable Deductible |
|
|
|
By Adv. Yael Navon
In a recent Court judgement handed down by the Magistrates Court of Tel Aviv, the Court denied an insurance claim due to the fact that the insured provided false information regarding the identity of the driver of the insured car. The false information was provided in order to try and avoid payment of the high deductible which applied to damages caused by a young driver.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Declination of Coverage – Directives and Limitations |
|
|
|
Several years ago the Commissioner of Insurance issued two directives regarding an insurer's duty upon declination of coverage. The first, issued on 9 December 1998 provided that when an insurer decides to decline coverage it must include in its letter of declination all the reasons which have led to taking this decision. The second directive, issued on 29 May 2002 provided that an insurer may raise declination arguments which were not included in its letter of declination only if they are based on new circumstances which developed after the letter was issued or if the insurer could not have known about them at the time it declined the insured's claim.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Eliahu Insurance Co. Ltd. et al v. the Estate of Rachel Piementa and Aharon Piementa |
|
|
|
The Insured's Duty to Initiate Disclosure Decision of the Israeli Supreme Court
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
C.A. 140/00, 550/01 - Loss of Earnings for the "Lost Years" |
|
|
|
According to the Israeli Supreme Court, once the claim of the living injured to damages for loss of earnings in the "lost years" is recognised as valid - also the right of the estate of the deceased to such damages should be recognised.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Insurer Cannot Raise Defence not Mentioned in First Declination Letter |
|
|
|
According to a new Supreme Court judgment, an insurer cannot raise defence allegations which were not mentioned in the first letter of declination.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Application of Deductible -Recent Decisions of the Israeli Courts |
|
|
|
Application of Deductible -Recent Decisions of the Israeli Courts
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
ACA 5916/02 Mishmar Security Services Ltd. v. Eliahu Insurance |
|
|
|
Limitation Period in Liability Insurance - Seven Years from the Date the Insured became Aware of the Cause of Action Against Him
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Limitation Period for Insurance Claims in Israel |
|
|
|
According to Section 70 of the Insurance Law, in Liability Insurance the insured’s claim shall not be time barred until the claim of the third party against the insured has prescribed. Since this section is drafted in the negative, a question has arisen: when will an insurance claim against the liability insurer be time-barred? In the judgement handed down in A.C.A. 5916/02 Hamishmar v. Eliahu Insurance Co. and Others the Supreme Court ruled that the claim against the liability insurer is time-barred after the expiry of seven years from date of filing the claim by the third party against the insured.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Double Insurance: .C.A. 3948/97, 5449/97 Migdal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Menorah |
|
|
|
The Israeli Supreme Court handed down a judgement on the question of whether an insurer who paid insurance benefits to his insured under a Property insurance policy, is entitled to contribution from another insurer who covered the same property under a policy issued to another insured.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
C.C. 2059/99 Eliahu Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Avi Attias |
|
|
|
Agreement on Polygraph Test - Interpretation in Favour of Insurers or Insureds?
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
C.A. 2016/00 Anatoli Rozenzweit v. Jacob Rosenblitt |
|
|
|
What is an Intentional or Criminal Act in P.I. Policies?
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
CC 1076/99 Neve Ganetal et al v. Israel Phoenix Assurance |
|
|
|
In a recent judgement, CC 1076/99 Neve Ganetal et al v. Israel Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd. et al, the Tel Aviv District Court ruled on the proper interpretation of an 'insured event' under a Contractors All Risk Policy.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|