A stolen crane sign – is it recoverable?
Sep 25, 2019
Attorney Shlomi Hadar – John Geva, Hadar & Co. Law Firm
The Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court heard a lawsuit filed by the owner of a truck that provides transportation services and work that requires lifting using the truck's crane. The plaintiff purchased the truck with a crane and requested to issue an insurance policy for the truck and crane that covers all types of insured events. She did so by contacting the defendant's representative, the insurance agent. In 2016, the plaintiff's truck was broken into, as a result of which parts of the truck were damaged and stolen, including a wireless control panel for the crane (hereinafter: " the panel ") worth NIS 28,000. As a result, the plaintiff turned to the insurer for compensation for the property damage caused to the truck in accordance with the insurance policy. The insurer compensated the plaintiff, deducting wear and tear, establishment, deductible, offset due to underinsurance, and deducting the value of the sign, claiming a lack of insurance coverage . The plaintiff chose to file a lawsuit claiming that the control panel is a significant part of the truck crane that is insured by the insurer. On the other hand, the insurer claimed that it compensated the plaintiff in accordance with its liability under the policy, minus the remote control in the absence of insurance coverage, as it claimed that the plaintiff violated her duty and did not comply with the policy provision, which states that: "A truck with a work device that has a removable/wireless remote control, the remote control will not be in the truck during hours when the truck is unmanned." At the time of the theft, the stolen control panel was inside the truck, which was unmanned, in complete violation of the terms of the policy.
Attorney Shlomi Hadar – John Geva, Hadar & Co. Law Firm
The Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court heard a lawsuit filed by the owner of a truck that provides transportation services and work that requires lifting using the truck's crane.
The plaintiff purchased the truck with a crane and requested to issue an insurance policy for the truck and crane that covers all types of insured events. She did so by contacting the defendant's representative, the insurance agent.
In 2016, the plaintiff's truck was broken into, as a result of which parts of the truck were damaged and stolen, including a wireless control panel for the crane (hereinafter: " the panel ") worth NIS 28,000. As a result, the plaintiff turned to the insurer for compensation for the property damage caused to the truck in accordance with the insurance policy.
The insurer compensated the plaintiff, deducting wear and tear, establishment, deductible, offset due to underinsurance, and deducting the value of the sign, claiming a lack of insurance coverage .
The plaintiff chose to file a lawsuit claiming that the control panel is a significant part of the truck crane that is insured by the insurer.
On the other hand, the insurer claimed that it compensated the plaintiff in accordance with its liability under the policy, minus the remote control in the absence of insurance coverage, as it claimed that the plaintiff violated her duty and did not comply with the policy provision, which states that: "A truck with a work device that has a removable/wireless remote control, the remote control will not be in the truck during hours when the truck is unmanned."
At the time of the theft, the stolen control panel was inside the truck, which was unmanned, in complete violation of the terms of the policy.
Examining the wives
After examining the evidence before it, the court dismissed the lawsuit.
The truck owner's claim that his insurance agent claimed that the crane was insured, including its parts, was not proven at all due to the fact that he decided not to summon the insurance agent in question. Furthermore, even if the truck owner's claim that he learned that separate insurance for the sign had to be taken out only during the lawsuit itself is sincere, it does not help him, since the court learned from him that he did not even ask to review the insurance policy or make a calculation as expected before purchasing the policy, nor did he verify the value of the truck against the insured value - and this is his negligence alone.
Moreover, the fact that the insurer's appraiser also made an initial estimate with respect to the sign and that she did not comment on it does not indicate that the defendant approved the replacement of the sign in question.
Apart from the fact that in this case it appears that the insured was careless when taking out truck insurance, one must learn from this case the great importance of presenting a complete picture of the insured to the insurance agent and the insurance company in order to receive a professional response, as broad as possible, to the risks and expected damages to property and body.
מסמכים
