Sharon Shefer, Adv. Sigal Avshalom, Adv. Levitan, Sharon & Co. CC 6356-03-14 Yossef Levi v. Pazgas Ltd. and Phoenix Insurance Co (26.11.20) On 26 November 2020, the Central District Court (Judge Hadas Ovadia) dismissed a Claim filed by Mr. Yossef Levi (hereinafter: Plaintiff) against Pazgas Ltd. and its Insurer, Phoenix Insurance Company. Ltd. (hereinafter: Defendants),
In a recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court, the boundary between maintaining the Commissioner’s directives to include "full grounds and reasons for dismissing the claim” in a letter of declination, and the right of Insurers to provide additional details in the Statement of Defence was outlined, as the Supreme Court accepted Insurers’ position
Recent conflicting decisions were given, one by the Haifa District Court and the other by the Tel Aviv District Court, on the question whether a foreign Insurer is entitled to file a subrogation claim through its Insured after paying the Insured insurance benefits. In these two instances the alleged tortfeasor requested from the Court to
On July 28th 2019, the Supreme Court of Israel (Justices N. Hendel, M. Mazuz, A. Baron) declined an appeal filed by Eran Polack and several companies controlled by him against Insurers: Allianz Versicherungs, Menorah Mivtachim Insurance Company and HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherungs. Insurers were represented by Levitan, Sharon & Co. (P. Sharon, S. Shefer, K. Barel)
Introduction: A Settlement Agreement was concluded between Plaintiffs and several Defendants who were parties to the claim, which included an allocation of liability, as well as of the amount of the damages. As a result, the Claim against the settling defendants was dismissed. The State, which was also a Co-Defendant in the Claim (hereinafter:
A fine line differentiates between act or omission of a torfeasor which could be covered by Professional Indemnify Policy and act or omission that could be covered by Public Liability Policy. For example, if a pedestrian falls due to a broken pavement – is the Municipality where the pavement is situated covered by its
Adv. Peggy Sharon, Adv. Sharon Shefer and Adv. Karin Barel October 2017 On 25th September 2017, the Central District Court (Judge Kinar) declined a Claim filed by Plaintiffs: Eran Polack (hereinafter: Polack) and several companies controlled by Polack against Insurers: Menorah Mivtachim Insurance Company, after Menorah, represented by Levitan, Sharon (P. Sharon, S. Shefer, K.
A fine line differentiates between act or omission of a torfeasor which could be covered by Professional Indemnify Policy and act or omission that could be covered by Public Liability Policy. For example, if a pedestrian falls due to a broken pavement – is the Municipality where the pavement is situated covered by its PI
In a Supreme Court decision handed down on 15th September 2013[1] which serves as a precedent, judges ruled on one of the most repeated disputes which the lower Courts have dealt with in the past few years, i.e. whether the Insurer can avoid liability in the event the Insured overlooks a condition to apply security