themarker.com
Trampoline Accident and Insurance Dispute
A court case where an insurance company denied a claim based on a child's fall from a trampoline but was found liable due to the adults' negligence and policy coverage.
Hebrew
Israel
IsraelGender IssuesLawsuitAccidentInsuranceCourtNegligence
Harel InsuranceSupreme Court Of Israel
YossiFarah ChaimovichJudge Yoni Levni
- What caused the injury to the eight-year-old child?
- The eight-year-old nephew of Yossi fell from a trampoline at his aunt and uncle's home, resulting in injuries. His parents sued Harel Insurance, the homeowner's insurance company.
- Why did the insurance company initially deny the claim?
- Harel Insurance initially denied the claim, arguing that the fall was a natural risk and not due to negligence. The court disagreed, stating that the adults had a duty of care towards the child.
- What legal principle played a key role in the court's decision?
- The judge cited the principle in insurance law that ambiguous policies are interpreted against the insurer. This principle helps to balance the power imbalance between large insurance companies and individual policyholders.
- What was the court's ruling regarding the insurance policy's coverage?
- The insurance policy covered not only the named insured, but also her spouse, children, parents, and other close relatives. The court found that even though the couple was divorced, they were considered a common-law couple, thus covered under the policy.
- Why was the cohabitating partner covered under the policy even though they weren't named on it?
- The court ruled that Yossi, despite not being the named insured, was covered by the policy because he was the cohabitating partner and father of the homeowner's child. This decision was based on the principle of interpreting insurance policies against the insurer if there is ambiguity.