Attorney Gil Nadel, Gilad Paz
The Supreme Court has recently deferred an insurance company's request for the right to appeal the rulings of the Tel Aviv Magistrates Court and District Court, in which it was determined that, according to the insurance policy, the insurance company is liable for damage caused to an importer who dispatched a shipment of onion seeds from Haifa Port to La Guaira Port in Venezuela.
In so doing, the Supreme Court has effectually approved the initial decisions of the Courts which state that it is possible to determine the debt of an insurance company based solely upon the insurance company and in light of documents that were submitted, without hearing testimonies regarding the damage inflicted upon the cargo.
The case:
A seed company by the name of Genetics exported a shipment from Israel to Venezuela, which was lost and did not reach its destination. The company submitted a lawsuit against a number of factors in the chain of the sea freight, among them the insurance company that had insured the shipment, as well as against the marine carrier and its agent in Israel, and against the forwarder in Israel.
The exporter had purchased a type A (all risk) insurance policy from the insurance company, and claimed that the loss of the cargo and its failure to reach its destination is damage that can be compensated within the framework of the policy.
The Magistrates Court determined that there is no reason to hear proof of the damage caused to the cargo, stating that as far as the Court was concerned the documents were sufficient proof of such, and determined that the parties must only reach an agreement regarding the debt owed as per the policy. At a later date, the Magistrates Court ruled that the policy covers this incident. The District Court deferred the appeal.
The insurance company was not deterred, submitting a request with the Supreme Court for the right to appeal. The insurance company claimed that the Courts' initial had gone too far when they determined that the cargo was a total loss without allowing for testimony, and that, in such, this was an infringement of their right to properly defend themselves.
Supreme Court ruling:
The Supreme Court expressed discontent at the fact that the Magistrates Court had ruled upon the question of the insurance company's debt without hearing any proof on the matter and based solely upon documents, yet it also noted that the final verdict was yet to be given, since the question of the extent of the damage must now be ruled, and the insurance company can appeal the entire verdict when this will be given.
Essentially, the Supreme Court noted that the Magistrates Court was entitled to reach a conclusion regarding the insurance debt solely on the basis of documents, including, among other things, the documents sent by the insurance company to the exporter before the claim was submitted, and in light of the facts that were indisputable.
Therefore, the request for the right to appeal was deferred, and the insurance company was charged with paying NIS 5,000 to the exporter.
[Civil appeal 4153/12 Harel Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hezera Genetics Ltd. and others, Supreme Court, Judge Zvi Zilbertal, decision of August 12, 2012.]
Notes:
The main method for investigating complaints is hearing witness testimonies. In such, the court can have a firsthand impression of the parties involved, is able to determine their credibility or lack thereof, and will furthermore often address its own questions to the witnesses.
In some cases, the parties involved will prefer to shorten the procedure, ceding the testimonies and accepting written summations alone, especially when the issue at hand is a legal one and not dependent upon the facts (or the parties have agreed upon the facts).
In the above mentioned case, when the decision points at a disagreement between the parties regarding the facts, ceding testimonies was not an obvious choice.
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
