Court Rejects Traveler's Claim Against Harel Insurance After Bot Interaction
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
An Israeli traveler's 7,225 shekel lawsuit against Harel Insurance was dismissed by a Herzliya court. The traveler claimed poor service from an insurance bot and sought reimbursement for illness in Thailand. Judge Tzachi Almog ruled the traveler failed to meet policy conditions for a refund or flight change, lacking medical documentation. The traveler has 15 days to appeal the decision.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- A court dismissed a traveler's 7,225 shekel claim against Harel Insurance.
- The traveler alleged poor service from an insurance bot while ill in Thailand.
- The judge ruled the traveler did not meet policy conditions for a refund.
- Lack of medical documentation from Thailand was a key factor in the ruling.
- The traveler has 15 days to appeal the decision.
A small claims court in Herzliya has dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Israeli traveler against Harel Insurance for 7,225 shekels. The traveler, who was in Thailand in January, claimed he fell ill with fever, stomach pain, and weakness. He sought reimbursement for his insurance policy, the cost of an earlier flight home, and compensation for a ruined vacation, alleging Harel's chatbot and customer service failed to provide adequate assistance.
The dispute centered on a January 28th interaction where the traveler, feeling unwell, typed "menu" instead of the number "2" which corresponded to "Travel Insurance Abroad" in the Harel bot's options. The bot repeatedly presented the same menu, and after over half an hour of no response, the chat was automatically terminated. The traveler claimed he and his travel agent made dozens of calls over two days without reaching a human representative, encountering only bots asking about mortgages or other unrelated matters.
Judge Tzachi Almog ruled that the traveler had not met the policy's conditions for a refund or flight change. The policy's basic coverage for trip cancellation expired upon departure, and trip shortening required hospitalization of over two nights abroad, which was not documented. The court found that the traveler's decision to return early was a personal one, not necessitated by a covered medical event as defined by the policy.
Furthermore, the court noted that the traveler failed to provide any medical documentation from Thailand, such as a doctor's referral or hospital admission, to substantiate his claim that his condition required an immediate return. The judge also pointed out that one of the receipts for the flight change was not detailed enough to clarify the nature of the charges. The court did not award legal expenses.
The traveler has 15 days to file an appeal with the district court. The lawsuit was filed 20 days after the bot ended the chat session.