Israeli Supreme Court Bars Palestinian Authority From Challenging Terror Victims' Disability Claims for Compensation

The Israeli Supreme Court fully endorsed the government legal advisor's position by rejecting appeals filed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) that sought to dispute disability determinations made for terror victims claiming compensation. The court ruled that the PA cannot present evidence to contradict disability assessments established by the National Insurance Institute or courts in tort claims related to the same incident.

This ruling relates to two appeals concerning "exemplary damages" claims against the PA, which is held liable as a terror sponsor under a law effective June 2024. The law grants victims of terror who suffer permanent disability the right to receive exemplary damages from the PA. These damages are punitive and do not require proof of actual harm, differing from regular compensation.

One case involved a victim with a mental disability recognized by the National Insurance Institute's medical committees under the Terror Victims' Rights Law. The other involved family members of a terror victim who was murdered and recognized as indirect victims in a tort claim against the perpetrators. Both district courts rejected the PA's attempts to challenge the disability findings.

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, joined by Justices Yael Wilner and Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, emphasized that the law's language is unequivocal: once permanent disability is established, whether by the National Insurance Institute or a court, the victim is entitled to exemplary damages. The court noted the law uses past tense, indicating no need to re-examine disability in exemplary damages proceedings. The ruling clarified that the law intentionally prohibits introducing evidence to dispute disability determinations, reflecting its goal to ensure fair compensation, punish the PA, and deter future offenses.

The court also confirmed that the exemplary damages amount is fixed and uniform, based solely on the binary presence or absence of permanent disability, not its severity. President Amit highlighted the thorough medical evaluations conducted to determine disability. He concluded that although the law is exceptional in tort legislation, its clear wording serves its purpose, and the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions. This judgment marks a significant step toward streamlining compensation claims against the PA, minimizing repetitive litigation over disability status.