On 26 November 2020 the Central District Court (Judge Hadas Ovadia) dismissed a claim filed by Yossef Levi (the plaintiff) against Pazgas Ltd and its insurer Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd (the defendants) and determined that the plaintiff had failed to prove:
- that the claim event had been a 'gas explosion'; and
- Pazgas's alleged negligence.(1)
At approximately 9:00pm on 7 September 2010, a fire broke out in a pub called Levis located in an industrial building in the city of Ashdod, which was operated by the plaintiff.
In March 2014 the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in the Central District Court regarding property damage that he had allegedly sustained, in the amount of NIS6,635,846, as a result of a gas leak that had led to an explosion and a fire that had broken out in his pub.
According to the statement of claim, on 7 September 2010 a gas explosion occurred at the plaintiff's pub and a fire broke out thereafter. A fire investigator's opinion was attached, which stated that due to a gas leak that occurred for no apparent reason in the pub's kitchen area, the gas spread to the pub's refrigerator room. A spark from one of the refrigerators apparently caused a gas explosion, following which a fire broke out in the plaintiff's business, causing severe damage to the construction and the contents of the pub.
The plaintiff argued that Pazgas:
- had designed, supplied and installed the gas systems in the business;
- had also supplied gas to the business from the day of its establishment; and
- was responsible for the gas system and its maintenance and safety.
Therefore, the plaintiff argued that the gas explosion and the fire had been caused due to the negligence of Pazgas or its employees.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff's allegations regarding a gas explosion were contrary to the facts and findings that were found at the scene, which indicated that the fire had broken out as a result of intentional arson. This conclusion was supported by the experts' opinions issued by Yaakov Gal, an expert for gas systems, and Eli Heine, a fire investigator, as well as by the report issued by the firefighting authority.
Moreover, the defendants denied the alleged damage. The loss adjuster's opinion submitted on behalf of the plaintiff lacked support and references, it suffered from basic computational errors and included the loss adjuster's fee, the payment of which was conditional on the success of the claim.
In addition, the defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked a personal cause of action, since he was not the owner of the pub – his two sons were the owners, and had also purchased the equipment that had allegedly been damaged.
On 26 November 2020 the Central District Court dismissed the claim filed against Pazgas and Phoenix Insurance Company.
In its judgment, the court accepted all of the arguments raised in the written summaries filed on behalf of the defendants and determined as follows.
Event resulted from fire and not gas explosion
The court referred in its judgment to evidence that was consistent with the defendants' experts' opinions, which concluded that the fire had been a result of arson and not a gas leak. The court referred, among other things, to the event report issued by the fire fighters, in which the event was classified as a fire incident.
In addition, the court referred to the fact that the plaintiff and his sons were not present at the business or in its surroundings at the time of the event and that the plaintiff's argument regarding a gas explosion was based solely on the fire investigator's expert opinion which was filed on his behalf. Moreover, the plaintiff's expert confirmed in his cross examination that the uncertainty in this case is high and that he had no evidence of a previous gas leak. In addition, the plaintiff's expert noted in his opinion that a gas leak had occurred "for some unknown reason". In these circumstances, the court stated that this was insufficient to substantiate the plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff had not proven that Pazgas had been negligent or that it was liable for the incident
The court accepted the defendants' arguments, according to which it was proved that the gas system had been inspected by the insured in accordance with the relevant standards and that the gas facility had received the appropriate approval. In addition, the court referred to the fact that the plaintiff's expert confirmed that he had found no evidence that a repair had been made to the gas system or that someone had turned on the gas tap during the days prior to the incident.
Plaintiff had not proven alleged damage
The court determined that the plaintiff's loss adjuster's opinion lacked support and references and was based on a list of equipment compiled by the plaintiff's son. In addition, the court referred to the fact that the plaintiff's loss adjuster admitted in his examination that the total damage according to the list of equipment was approximately NIS2 million less than the amount that was mentioned in his opinion.
Moreover, the court stated that the plaintiff's loss adjuster had a real interest in the results of the proceedings, as his fees depended on the success of the claim, and that the claim amount included the plaintiff's loss adjuster's fees of more than NIS500,000.
Plaintiff did not own business where alleged event had occurred
Finally, the court accepted the plea of lack of cause of action and stated that the plaintiff was not the owner of the business where the alleged event had occurred. Therefore, the court determined that the damage allegedly caused to the pub did not entitle the plaintiff to compensation.
Therefore, the claim was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff did not appeal the judgment.
Endnotes
(1) CC 6356-03-14 Yossef Levi v Pazgas Ltd and Phoenix Insurance Co (26 November 2020).
