Case Number

LCA 2281/05

Date Decided

11-12-2007

Decision Type

Appellate

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Facts: The respondent, a lawyer, represented a company (hereinafter ‘the company’) that filed a claim against the appellant insurance company for fire loss. Before it received the insurance payout, the company asked the respondent to sign a document stating that he no longer represented them. It explained that the insurance company refused to make the payout for as long as the respondent represented the company. The respondent signed the document. When the company received the payout, it refused to pay the respondent the agreed fee for his services. The respondent sued the company for breach of contract, and the insurance company for inducing the company to breach the contract.

The Magistrates Court held that only the company was liable for the respondent’s fees. Since the company was unable to pay the fees, the respondent appealed the finding of the Magistrates Court that the applicant was not liable. The District Court allowed the appeal and found the applicant liable for the fees. It held that the insurance broker had induced the company to terminate the representation contract with the respondent. It further held that the insurance broker is an agent of the insurer under Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Insurance Contract Law, 5741-1981, and therefore the applicant had the burden of proving that in the circumstances the insurance broker had not acted as its agent.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal on the question whether the insurance company was liable, under the law of agency, for the insurance broker’s having induced the company to terminate the representation contract with the respondent.

Held: Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Insurance Contract Law lists specific situations in which the insurance broker is regarded as acting as the agent of the insurer. This case does not fall within one of those situations. In the absence of a specific provision of statute, the general law of agency applies.

(Majority opinion – Justices Arbel, Cheshin) The case should be returned to the Magistrates Court to consider whether the insurance broker was an agent of the applicant and whether the applicant is liable for the insurance broker’s tort of inducing the company to breach its contract with the respondent.

(Minority opinion – Justice Naor) Because the respondent only raised the agency argument in his closing arguments in the Magistrates Court, and such an argument requires a clarification of facts, the case should not be returned to the Magistrates Court, and the original decision of the Magistrates Court should be reinstated.

(Majority opinion – Justices Naor, Cheshin) The respondent should be liable for legal fees and trial costs in a sum of NIS 20,000.

(Minority opinion – Justice Arbel) The liability for legal fees and trial costs in the appeals should be decided by the Magistrates Court, in accordance with the outcome of the case.

Keywords

Agency -- Torts committed by agent, Insurance -- Insurance Contract

Download

Share

COinS