The importance of product liability insurance - a contractor is found liable for the damage of a guest who fell from an attic years after construction
Jul 23, 2017
Article by Itzick Simon
Sometimes very interesting court rulings are published that create a clear illustration of the importance that should be given to types of insurance that are not too common among the public of developers and contractors.
Recently, an interesting ruling was made by the Supreme Court in recent weeks, requiring a contractor who built a private house to compensate an injured person who fell long after construction and occupancy from an attic whose floor was partly constructed of plasterboard. The victim alleged negligence on the part of the contractor in failing to protect the opening and not installing warning devices. On the other hand, the contractor claimed that the opening was intended to allow for future expansion on a level to which access was limited by a concrete wall, and also claimed that a warning sign had been placed in place. The District Court accepted the contractor's arguments and rejected the victim's claim, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling and the claim was accepted.
Article by Itzick Simon
Sometimes very interesting court rulings are published that create a clear illustration of the importance that should be given to types of insurance that are not too common among the public of developers and contractors.
Recently, an interesting ruling was made by the Supreme Court in recent weeks, requiring a contractor who built a private house to compensate an injured person who fell long after construction and occupancy from an attic whose floor was partly constructed of plasterboard.
The victim alleged negligence on the part of the contractor in failing to protect the opening and not installing warning devices.
On the other hand, the contractor claimed that the opening was intended to allow for future expansion on a level to which access was limited by a concrete wall, and also claimed that a warning sign had been placed in place.
The District Court accepted the contractor's arguments and rejected the victim's claim, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling and the claim was accepted.
Court decision
The judges' ruling was that the contractor should have anticipated people entering the danger zone and completely blocked access.
And the highlight of the ruling: The fact that the contractor acted according to a plan does not relieve him of liability for damage caused to the injured party as a result of a key remaining unsecured.
So what policy would serve such a claim here?
I don't know if the contractor here was insured, in any case, a product liability insurance policy is intended precisely for claims of this type, in which a claim is filed against the contractor for damage caused to a third party as a result of a defect in the product.
In such a case, the insurance company would bear both the legal expenses (here the appellant/plaintiff was awarded expenses of NIS 50,000 just for the appeal to the Supreme Court) and of course the results of the proceedings and the compensation awarded to the plaintiff.
Best regards,
Itzick Simon
מסמכים
