The insured's claim against the insurance company was rejected due to the conclusion of a contract after the insured event occurred.
Jun 26, 2026
By Attorney John Geva
Case Details and Nature of the Claim
The judgment was delivered on 7 May 2026 by the Haifa Magistrate's Court, before the Honourable Judge Magda Joubran Marcus, in Case No. 47199-10-19.
The proceedings concerned a personal injury claim filed by the plaintiff, Anonymous (the "Plaintiff"), born in 1996, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a workplace accident that occurred at a construction site in Holon on 29 November 2015.
The claim was brought against several defendants: the Plaintiff's employer, Aybek Construction Works Ltd. ("Aybek" or the "Employer"); the project owner and principal contractor, Zalman Zecharia Properties and Investments Ltd. ("Zalman"); and their respective insurers.
In addition to the issues of tort liability, the central dispute in the case concerned the existence of insurance coverage under a policy issued by Menora Insurance Ltd. ("Menora"), which insured Aybek. Menora denied liability, arguing that the insurance policy had been created—both conceptually and technically—only after the accident had already occurred, rendering the insurance contract void ab initio.
The Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Mohammad Hussein. Aybek was represented by Attorney Rami Kablan. Zalman and its insurer, Hachshara Insurance Company Ltd., were represented by Attorney Leon Shaked Tamari. Menora was represented by Attorney Rivka Yanko.
The factual background and circumstances of the case
On the date of the accident, the plaintiff was employed as an assistant at a 13-storey construction project. Zalman Ltd. was the project owner and principal contractor, and had engaged Aybek Ltd. as the subcontractor responsible for the structural works.
On the day of the incident, a load test was being conducted on a tower crane that had been assembled on site. As part of the test, a counterweight was required to be lifted, and the plaintiff was instructed by his supervisor (who was also his father) to climb onto the counterweight and secure it to the crane's lifting chain.
While carrying out this task, and as the crane operator began lifting the counterweight with the plaintiff standing on it, the chain suddenly became detached and struck the plaintiff forcefully in the face. As a result of the impact, the plaintiff fell to the ground, sustaining nasal fractures and permanent facial scarring. He was subsequently assessed with a combined permanent medical disability of 14.5%.
From an insurance perspective, Aybek Ltd. was insured under a policy issued by Menora. A review of the policy documents revealed that the stated inception date of the insurance coverage was 20 November 2015—apparently nine days before the accident. However, the lower section of the policy documents bore significantly later issuance dates: 22 December 2015 and 5 January 2016. This discrepancy gave rise to the legal dispute regarding the validity and effectiveness of the insurance coverage.
Aivac claimed that Menorah's insurance coverage was already in effect on November 20, 2015. According to it, the insured contacted the insurance agent on that date, signed an offer form and paid the premium, and therefore the fact that the policy was printed in the insurance company's computer systems only in December is a technical matter that should not affect the insured's rights.
Menora , on the other hand, claimed that the insurance contract was void under Section 16(a) of the Insurance Contract Law, which states that a contract to cover a risk that had already occurred at the time of its conclusion is void. Menora presented real-time email correspondence between the insurance agent and the underwriter at the company, which showed that the proposal form and the employment agreement were submitted for approval by the company only on December 22, 2015 – about a month after the accident. According to her, at that time the company was not informed of the existence of a damaging event, and the company approved the policy retroactively without knowing that the risk had already materialized. Menora emphasized that the insurance proposal explicitly stated that the insurance would only be valid upon approval of the proposal by the head office.
The parties' claims
The court examined the issue of insurance coverage in depth and decided to dismiss the lawsuit against Menora in its entirety. This decision was based on several legal pillars:
Proof of the date of conclusion of the contract: The court determined that the evidence indicates that the insurance offer was only forwarded to Menora on December 22, 2015. The email correspondence presented showed that the underwriter refused to approve the policy until receiving additional clarifications on that day, and that in the period of time that elapsed until final approval, the insurer was not informed of the accident that had already occurred.
Testimony of the manager of the Aivac company: A crucial element was the cross-examination of the manager of the Aivac company. When the manager was asked why the proposal reached Menora only a month after the date specified in it, and why there was such a large time gap, he repeatedly replied "I don't know." The court concluded from these answers that there is truth in Menora's claim that the insurance was actually done after the accident without informing the company about the incident.
The court's decision and the essential reasons
The court adopted the legal ruling that the risk that the insured event will occur in the interim period between the submission of the proposal and the conclusion of the contract lies with the insurance applicant. Since the contract was legally concluded only with the approval of the signature in December, and the accident occurred in November, this is an insured event that "has already happened."
The court referred to the book by scholar Yaron Elias. In his book, Elias listed four situations in which insurance can nevertheless be applied during the interim period:
1. The agent made a representation that the insurance was effective immediately.
2. When at the time the offer was transmitted to the insurer, the agent knew that the event had occurred.
3. Various failures by the insurer during the contracting procedures delayed the contract.
4. The policy states that the policy is valid from the date the offer is completed.
The court ruled that the first three cases cited by Elias are not relevant to our case. In the present case, the court was not convinced that the date of signing the policy was indeed November 20, 2015, and this was from the words of the insured himself who signed the proposal. When asked about the option of a later signing other than the date listed, he replied "I don't know." Hence, the court ruled that this case does not fall within the scope of the cases in which insurance coverage will be recognized in the interim period despite the provisions of Section 16(a).
Implementation of Section 16(a) of the Insurance Contract Law
In terms of damages, the court determined that Aivac was 45% liable for the accident, due to its negligence in sending an inexperienced worker to perform a dangerous task without training and in violation of safety regulations. Zalman was found to be 40% liable for its failure as a construction contractor to supervise safety on the site.
Despite the lack of coverage in Menorah, it was determined that the employer's share would be borne by the "Kashchara" company, which insured her under another policy that was found to be relevant.
Distribution of tort liability
Summary and conclusion
The Court dismissed the claim against Menora Insurance Ltd. and ordered Aybek to pay Menora ILS 4,000 in legal costs.
With respect to the remaining defendants, the Court awarded the Plaintiff total compensation of ILS 124,000 (after deducting benefits received from the National Insurance Institute of Israel), together with attorney's fees and expert witness expenses.
This judgment underscores the fundamental importance of the duty of disclosure at the time an insurance contract is concluded. It clarifies that the inclusion of a retroactive inception date in an insurance policy does not cure the failure to disclose an insured event that had already occurred before the insurer's final acceptance of the risk. Insureds and insurance agents should bear in mind that, until the underwriting process has been completed and the insurance proposal has been formally accepted, the risk remains with the insured. Any concealment of a loss occurring during this interim period may render the insurance coverage void ab initio.
As of the date of writing, no appeal to the District Court is known to have been filed.
מסמכים
