 |
| |
|
Lawyers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Unattended Vehicle |
|
|
|
|
In a recent judgment (C.A 004916/96 Jotaly v. Naptonia and Others, Magistrates Court of Haifa - not yet published), the Israeli court once again ruled that the Unattended Vehicle Exclusion applies to a loss of insured property from a vehicle which was left unattended for a few moments.
 The court accepted insurers' position that the exclusion applies also in cases where it was not the insured who left the vehicle, but a carrier who carried the goods to the insured's premises.
It is important to note that the court examined whether the said exclusion was properly emphasized as stipulated in Section 3 of the Insurance Contract Law. For that purpose the judge examined not only the policy, but also the letter, which was attached to the policy and which included the main exclusions in a very clear manner.
The same ruling was adopted in PCA 5438/95 Rozenwasser v. Lloyds and Co., PDI 51(5), 855. In this case the court did not accept the insured's allegation that the exclusion should not apply in cases where the person who left the goods in an unattended car was an entrustee who received the goods on consignment. The words of the exclusion: "...does not cover theft...from a vehicle...under the control of the assured and/or his or their servants of agents or representatives..." should be interpreted to include any one who acts for the insured or on his behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
