An expensive flight to fly high
Mar 16, 2020
By: Adv. Shlomi Hadar – John Geva, Hadar & Co. Law Firm
Recently, the Rishon Lezion Magistrate’s Court heard a claim filed by seven buyers against a construction company. The buyers had purchased new apartments in a residential building developed as part of a TAMA 38 project, on the fifth and sixth floors, and discovered that a smaller elevator than agreed upon had been installed—one that could not accommodate a family of four riding together and caused inconvenience in various situations.
According to the buyers’ apartment specifications, the construction company had committed to providing an elevator suitable for four passengers, but in practice, an elevator suitable for only two passengers was installed.
During the proceedings, the construction company sent a third-party notice to the elevator company that installed the elevator in the residential building.
The defendant argued that these were “inflated claims”, while the buyers’ expert opined that the installed elevator caused a loss of value to the buyers’ apartments of NIS 800,000. The court-appointed expert estimated the loss at NIS 300,000, and the defendant’s expert concluded that the loss was only NIS 193,000. The defendant further argued that it would have been possible to install a four-passenger elevator by enlarging the shaft.
From: Attorney Shlomi Hadar – John Geva, Hadar & Co. Law Firm
Recently, the Rishon LeZion Magistrate's Court heard a lawsuit filed by seven buyers against a construction company, after the buyers bought new apartments from the company, which were built in a residential building as part of the TAMA 38 project, on the fifth and sixth floors of the building, and discovered that an elevator smaller than agreed upon had been installed, which does not allow a family of 4 to ascend together, and even creates discomfort in various situations.
In the specifications for the plaintiffs' apartments, the contracting company undertook to provide an elevator suitable for four passengers, and in reality an elevator suitable for only two passengers was provided.
As part of the proceedings, the contracting company sent a third-party notice to the elevator company that installed the elevator that was the subject of the lawsuit in the residential building.
The defendant claimed that these were "inflated" claims, when in the opinion of the plaintiffs' expert, the latter expressed his opinion that the elevator installed in the building caused the plaintiffs' apartments to decrease in value by 800,000 NIS. An expert on behalf of the court estimated the decrease in value at only 300,000 NIS, while the expert on behalf of the defendant itself expressed his opinion that the decrease in value amounted to only 193,000 NIS. Yes, the defendant claimed that it was possible to build an elevator for 4 passengers while enlarging the shaft.
Expert opinion
An expert on behalf of the court expressed his opinion that it was possible to build an elevator suitable for 3 passengers in the existing shaft of the residential building, and this was indeed done, under the expert's supervision. The court ruled that the fact that a certain solution was reached, which the parties only reached in the course of the proceedings, was largely due to the contracting company, which did not comply with the provisions of the specification and provided an elevator smaller than agreed upon. The court also ruled that the defendant's claim that it was possible to build an elevator suitable for 4 passengers while enlarging the shaft was "unrealistic," since it would have required reducing the area of the apartments bordering the shaft.
At the end of the lawsuit, the parties reached a settlement with the contracting company and the elevator company, in which it was agreed that the plaintiffs would receive total compensation of NIS 410,000 for the decrease in the value of the apartments, as well as for the emotional distress caused to the plaintiffs. It was also agreed that the elevator company would bear NIS 120,000 of the settlement amount. The court expressed its opinion that if the "situation" had remained as it was, i.e. an elevator for only two people, the amounts of the decrease in value would have been higher and amounted to NIS 450,000, according to the opinion of the court's expert.
The ruling did not address the negligence of professionals involved in the design of the elevator and the execution of related work, and it is not inconceivable that if the source of the malfunction stems from this, contractors in situations of this type have appropriate grounds for action against suppliers and service providers whose appropriate insurance policies provide a source of compensation for the damage or reimbursement of the expenses of the contractor who was dragged into legal proceedings.
מסמכים
