Withdrawal from a Class Action against “The Pool” regarding deductibles – in mandatory insurance for motorcycles

Withdrawal from a Class Action against “The Pool” regarding deductibles – in mandatory insurance for motorcycles

Adv. Tammy Greenberg  and Adv. Aviv Klepner

 

The Tel Aviv District Court approved in a ruling dated 11^th March, 2024, the request for withdrawal from the Class Action proceeding conducted against the Israeli Pool for Vehicles Insurance Ltd. “The Pool”. The Pool was represented by attorneys Tammy Greenberg and Aviv Klepner of Levitan, Sharon & Co. (Class Action 24287-09-22).

 

The Applicant filed a lawsuit and a request for certification as a Class Action regarding mandatory motorcycle insurance policies that include deductibles.

 

The Applicant argued that the Pool deducted from the insurance benefits it paid to its policyholders who were injured in a road accident, the full deductible amounting to ILS 25,000 in a sweeping manner and without distinguishing between the heads of damage.  This, despite the fact that according to the provisions of the law and the Policy it should have deducted an amount of up to a total of ILS 25,000 only from the non-monetary damage, where such damage was caused.

 

The Applicant also argued that the Pool breached its obligations to list the heads of damage in the settlement proposals it sent thus preventing the examination of whether a deductible was indeed lawfully deducted.

 

The Court was requested to order the Pool, among other remedies, to refund to all of its Insureds in the mandatory insurance policy who filed claims against it for personal injuries, the amount of the deductible that was allegedly deducted in excess. It is claimed that the total claim amount for the group exceeded ILS 2.5 million.

 

The Pool submitted a detailed response to the request for certification in which, among other arguments, it insisted that it acts consistently according to the law and the Policy’s instructions with regard to deductibles.

 

The Pool emphasized that in policies that include deductibles, it deducts only from the non-monetary damage, according to the  share thereof in the total sum awarded, and this was also done in the case of the Applicant himself.  The Pool even presented evidence that proves its method of operation. The Pool argued that according to the instructions of the Regulator, it is not obligated to detail the main heas of damage when the Insured is represented by an attorney.

 

In a preliminary hearing, the Court advised the Applicant to withdraw from his application.

 

Consequently, the Applicant submitted a motion to withdraw, for which the Court gave its decision.

 

The Court stated in the judgement that during the hearing there was a brainstorming session regarding the parties’ arguments on the basis of the application. Among other things, the Respondent’s attorney presented examples which contradicted and rebutted the claim. In view of the difficulties faced by the Applicant in proving a law-breaching policy by the Respondent and in light of the slim chances of the application being accepted, the Court recommended the Applicant to withdraw the application, and accordingly, the latter submitted a withdrawal request which was approved by the Court in its judgement.