Israeli Court Orders Insurer Migdal to Pay for Car Damage After Denying Claim
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
An Israeli court ordered the insurance company Migdal to pay approximately 40,000 shekels to two car owners for damages sustained in a 2025 accident. Migdal had denied the claims, alleging the policyholder reported the car stolen and failed to cooperate. However, security footage proved the car was involved in the accident, and the theft report was filed late. Judge Gila Safra-Barnea ruled Migdal's investigation was inadequate and ordered payment, also holding the policyholder's driver jointly liable.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Migdal Insurance was ordered to pay 40,389 shekels for car damages from a 2025 accident.
- The insurer denied the claim, citing a stolen vehicle and lack of policyholder cooperation.
- Security cameras captured the accident, contradicting the theft claim.
- A judge ruled Migdal's investigation into the alleged theft was insufficient.
- The policyholder's driver was also held jointly liable for the damages.
- The court emphasized protecting innocent victims from insurer evasion.
A judge has ordered the Israeli insurance company Migdal to pay approximately 40,000 shekels (about $11,000 USD) to two car owners whose vehicles were damaged in an accident in September 2025. The incident occurred when a Kia Sportage struck a parked Toyota Prius, pushing it into another vehicle. Migdal had initially denied the claims, citing a clause in the insurance contract that allowed them to refuse payment if the insured did not cooperate or if the vehicle was reported stolen. The insurer claimed the policyholder stated the car was stolen the day before the accident.
However, security cameras captured the entire event, contradicting the theft claim. The theft report was filed over a month after the accident, and the date of the incident was incorrectly recorded. Judge Gila Safra-Barnea of the Small Claims Court in Kiryat ruled that Migdal's investigation was insufficient, noting that the insurer relied solely on a brief, disconnected phone call with the policyholder and did not attempt a face-to-face meeting or contact the hospital where he allegedly was admitted. The court found that Migdal failed to prove the necessary conditions for denying the claim, such as reasonable efforts to investigate, actual damage to the investigation process, and the extent of that damage.
The judge emphasized that the policyholder's alleged lack of cooperation after the accident did not absolve Migdal of responsibility, especially since the accident was clearly documented by surveillance footage. The ruling stated that the purpose of Section 68 of the Insurance Contract Law is to protect innocent victims when the at-fault party disappears or evades responsibility. The driver of the Kia, whose policy was with Migdal, was also ordered to pay the damages jointly with the insurer, despite not appearing in court.