The Supreme Court takes another step, this time in interpreting a contractors' insurance policy.

Regarding the division of liability, the District Court, whose ruling was appealed, determined that the incident reflects a situation in which several wrongdoers caused one damage, which physically cannot be divided. However, it was determined that the extent of the contribution of each of the various wrongdoers to the damage is indeed quantifiable conceptually, and therefore, each of the wrongdoers is liable for compensation in accordance with the extent of his contribution to the formation of the damage.

The District Court added that during the period relevant to the incident, the insured was insured with a contractor's work insurance policy, including coverage for third-party damages.
The District Court rejected Clal's argument that the damages incurred were excluded from the standard insurance policy, as the damage was caused by the removal or weakening of the ground support down the slope. It was determined that Clal's interpretation is unreasonable and inconsistent with the purpose and existence of the policy, since it effectively empties the policy of its content, since most contracting work begins with excavation in the ground.

The appeal hearing: The Supreme Court ruled that in this case, the damage caused by the violation of the duty of care by the wrongdoers is one, and each of them took part in the events that led to the landslide, in a way that cannot be divided and separately attributed to any of them.
The Supreme Court emphasized that liability for joint and several wrongdoers is imposed jointly and severally , and in particular where one of the wrongdoers is not solvent, then the damage "rolls over" to one of the wrongdoers and not to the injured party. In this case, there is no room for deviation from the rule since the conduct of all the wrongdoers was tainted with negligence and fault, and also because it is difficult to define which of them constitutes a clearly secondary wrongdoing. In the absence of clear reasons for this, and in the absence of a real reasoning justifying an exception to the rule, it was determined that all the wrongdoers should be held liable "jointly and severally."

He further added that the examination of the relative responsibility of the wrongdoers in the relationship between themselves is done according to justice and fairness and the degree of moral guilt of those involved.
In the issue concerning insurance coverage, it was determined that in the case at hand, there is no reason to interfere with the District Court's findings regarding the very existence of the insurance policy, which also includes liability towards a third party, as well as regarding the applicability of the policy to the circumstances of the case. However, since the District Court did not explicitly address the issue of the limit of liability covered by the insurance policy, the Supreme Court found that there is a reason to interfere.

In this context, the Supreme Court noted that insurance policies must be interpreted according to the parties' understanding, as implied by the policy and the circumstances of the case, and when it is not possible to trace the subjective purpose of the contract - the business purpose of the contract must be determined according to its objective purpose, which will be examined in accordance with the understanding of "reasonable and fair" parties. In the same matter, and since Clal Insurance did not present the full text of the insurance policy to the court, the Supreme Court interpreted the coverage in light of the examination of the legal obligations of the insured, and in this case, the construction company that won the tender of the Ministry of Construction and Housing.

In light of this, and since the Ministry of Construction's requirements for performing contract work include the existence of an insurance policy, which includes a third-party section with limited liability for an amount of 500,000-450,000 NIS, this was also the manner in which the Supreme Court found it appropriate to interpret the insurance contract between the parties. The same conclusion was determined in the ruling, and it is also possible to reach the same conclusion from the combination of two additional interpretative principles that have not yet been adopted in case law and which are drawn from American law: the rule of the insured's reasonable expectations, and the truth of the interpretation that examines the amount of the premium paid (the higher the premium than is customary, the tendency to attribute it to broader coverage). In light of all of this, the limit of liability of Clal Insurance was set at 480,000 NIS.