ת"א: +972-3-6877128
חיפה: +972-4-8419995
POLICY – the israeli insurance newspaper 5.1.2023:
The insurance issues in the flood incident in Tel Aviv: It is estimated that the Electric Company and the executive contractor will bear the insurance burden.
—
Several insurance issues arise following the incident in which a main water line was damaged on Wednesday in Tel Aviv and caused a major flood. The damage was caused by a contractor commissioned by the electric company. According to the estimates of senior officials in the industry, Menorah Mivathim is the insurer of the electric company.
According to the estimates of the loss adjustment firm ZAGUL, the burden of the insurance liability will be borne by several insurance companies, including the insurers of the main contractor and the damaging contractor.
On Wednesday morning, the construction contractor damaged a main water line as part of the works being carried out around Moshe Dayan St. and Derech HaShalom St. As a result of the damage, the neighboring streets were flooded with huge amounts of water as well as municipal infrastructure, contractor projects and private homes in the area.
According to Tom Zagul, CEO of the loss adjusters firm ZAGUL, who are handling the event on behalf of one of the parties: “On the surface it appears that this is an uncomplicated insurance event. However, it raises several important questions relevant to the determination of insurance coverage as far as it exists, including – what are the duties of a contractor prior to excavation in an area saturated with infrastructure? Wasn’t it reasonable for representatives from the ‘infrastructure owners’ to be present before the excavation? Does the contractor have to summon them? Has the historical infrastructure plan been adapted to a physical inspection in the field to verify that there is no danger?
Was there actual and written approval for the contractor’s work (if it was requested?) Were special conditions accepted or required for the excavation (permit in the conditions?) and other insurance questions that will arise in the coming days to check the liability of the apparently harmful contractor for the event and the insurance coverage he holds”.
The electric company informed “Policy” that the damage was done by a private contractor employed by the electric company.
POLICY – the israeli insurance newspaper 5.1.2023:
The insurance issues in the flood incident in Tel Aviv: It is estimated that the Electric Company and the executive contractor will bear the insurance burden.
—
Several insurance issues arise following the incident in which a main water line was damaged on Wednesday in Tel Aviv and caused a major flood. The damage was caused by a contractor commissioned by the electric company. According to the estimates of senior officials in the industry, Menorah Mivathim is the insurer of the electric company.
According to the estimates of the loss adjustment firm ZAGUL, the burden of the insurance liability will be borne by several insurance companies, including the insurers of the main contractor and the damaging contractor.
On Wednesday morning, the construction contractor damaged a main water line as part of the works being carried out around Moshe Dayan St. and Derech HaShalom St. As a result of the damage, the neighboring streets were flooded with huge amounts of water as well as municipal infrastructure, contractor projects and private homes in the area.
According to Tom Zagul, CEO of the loss adjusters firm ZAGUL, who are handling the event on behalf of one of the parties: “On the surface it appears that this is an uncomplicated insurance event. However, it raises several important questions relevant to the determination of insurance coverage as far as it exists, including – what are the duties of a contractor prior to excavation in an area saturated with infrastructure? Wasn’t it reasonable for representatives from the ‘infrastructure owners’ to be present before the excavation? Does the contractor have to summon them? Has the historical infrastructure plan been adapted to a physical inspection in the field to verify that there is no danger?
Was there actual and written approval for the contractor’s work (if it was requested?) Were special conditions accepted or required for the excavation (permit in the conditions?) and other insurance questions that will arise in the coming days to check the liability of the apparently harmful contractor for the event and the insurance coverage he holds”.
The electric company informed “Policy” that the damage was done by a private contractor employed by the electric company.
