The Central District Court in Lod approved the recognition of the claim against the direct insurance company IDI (Direct Insurance), as a class action.
The lawsuit was filed after it was alleged that the company sells comprehensive car insurance policies along with ancillary services such as towing a vehicle, a replacement vehicle, repairing windshields or headlights when in fact they are subcontractors.
In addition, the company was charged NIS 30,000 in legal expenses.
Since 2016, the Insurance Regulatory Circular has required companies to indicate to the customer the price of these services separately.
In addition, the company must note the fact that it is possible not to purchase them without changing the basic insurance price.
The circular also requires companies to allow the customer to choose his preferred supplier.
The lawsuit revealed that the representatives of the direct insurance service acted in complete violation of the Supervisor's instructions.
The insured could save hundreds of shekels by giving up the services or alternatively purchasing them from third parties at significantly lower prices.
As stated, the court held that the company had violated the Financial Services (Insurance) and Circulars of Insurance Supervision Act, and held that on its face there was a large group injured as a result and it was necessary to compensate the group members accordingly.
The representative group is represented by Adv. Yishai Zilberberg and Ado Malin from the Zilberberg-Malin firm.
Adv. Yishai Zilberberg represents in the class action, Photo: None
Judge Michal Nadav's decision reads: "I believe that the respondent's response (the insurance company YA) itself indicates that damage was allegedly caused, at least to some of the customers.
"Since the respondent herself claimed that one of the purposes of the service letters circular is to increase the reflection to the public, in order for him to understand which products he has purchased, and to be able to reduce costs by waiving ancillary services."
It was further determined that "when it was allegedly proven that the respondent did not disclose to the group members that they were entitled to waive the service vouchers and thus save costs, damage was caused to those who did not want the service vouchers. The respondent also did not disclose to customers "From the policy and compare prices of different service providers. After all, damage was allegedly caused to those who purchased a service letter that they wanted but could have purchased such a service letter at a cheaper price."
Adv. Edo Malin represents in the class action, Photo: None
The Zilberberg-Malin firm that filed the lawsuit responded: "This is a lawsuit that affects a very large group of insureds who have purchased car insurance from Direct Insurance in recent years. The court clarified that an insurance company, certainly like Direct Insurance that works directly with customers, has fair and disclosure obligations "The court further ruled that the company's representatives acted in violation of the directives of the Insurance Supervision Authority and thus caused financial harm to them, which it will have to compensate them for this."
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
