|
Fellow Weekly - Issue 130
WHAT'S THE LAW ™
◆
Encouraging intelligent and entertaining debate at your Shabbat table.
Fellow Weekly raises issues of business law and ethics through lively emails by featuring your real-life scenarios answered by our leading authorities and professionals.
|
|
CLICK HERE FOR THIS WEEK'S PDF
Our Hashavas Aveidah textbook is presently being edited by Torah Umesorah.
Click here for dedication opportunities.
It is Your Support which enables us to continue developing educational materials.
click here to donate.
|
Case 243 UNINSURED!
New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, used to be known as the insurance capital of the world.
Israel Izkowitz, owner of New England Independent Insurers managed one of the most reliable and successful Independent Insurance Agencies in the region. His firm offered impressive and affordable coverage policies from a range of nearly twenty assorted providers. His unfailing dependability earned him a matchless reputation in the competitive market.
After years of searching, Jonathan Adams found his dream vacation home, perched atop a rolling mountain in The Berkshires. Adams contacted Izkowitz, and discussed with the CSR (customer service representative) various home insurance options. After downloading the appropriate forms from Izkowitz' website, Adams submitted his application online for an HO-3 provided by The Berkshire Insurance Group, and authorized an automatic online monthly payment from his South Shore Savings Bank Account. A confirmation number was received.
Two months later, Adams wished to upgrade his policy to include coverage on all of the home's contents. Izkowitz's CSR told him she'd take care of his account immediately. Shortly thereafter, a horrific fire raged over the mountain, engulfed Adams home and left a pile of ash in its track.
When Adams submitted his claim, Berkshire denied coverage on all the home's contents. Izkowitz' CSR had forgotten to fill out the necessary paperwork for Adams' policy.
According to Halacha, what are Izkowitz' and/or his CSR's liabilities towards Adams?
What is the Law?
Please email us with your comments, questions, and answers at weekly@projectfellow.org.
|
|
LAST WEEK'S CASES ♦ CASE 240/241/242 ♦ Three Terribly Tragic Tips!
240 Shana Rubinstein from Los Angeles was dating a fellow, Paul B. from Johannesburg, South Africa. Shana had one South African acquaintance, a former schoolmate, Rina S. ; from whom she inquired much about the guy. Providence had it that, Paul and Rina's families immigrated together from Holland in the early 19th century and trustingly involved each other in numerous joint business ventures throughout the generations. Shana trusted that Rina would not steer her in the wrong direction.
Shana asked Rina if she knew if Paul ever had a history of drinking and smoking. Rina knew that Paul had a childhood history of alcohol addiction, but concerned for Paul's future told Shana that Paul was clean.
Months later, Shana and Paul announced their engagement. Yet their costly engagement was short lived after Shana discovered a current news clip reporting Paul being apprehended for driving while intoxicated.
241 Dr. Stern was interested in purchasing a home in South Australia. He hired a professed professional building inspector to inspect its roofing, structural engineering, plumbing and electrical systems, termite inspection and if there was salt damp - a real concern for South Australian homeowners. The inspector printed out a positive report for Stern. Shortly after Stern purchased the home, he discovered a white blanket of roof fungus across some shingles and a termite infestation to boot.
242 "You've still got some space to back up. You're clear. Steer a little left, back in...crash..." Don't you visualize this recurring scene, while you're behind the wheel trying to parallel park heeding the directive assistance of a local with compromised spatial assessment abilities walking his Dalmatian puppy at midnight in Flatbush?
Must Rina compensate Shana for her engagement expenditures on account of her bad advice?
Local regulations and disclaimers aside, can Stern sue the inspector for his losses due to the flawed advice?
Is the dog walker liable for the damages to both cars?
What's the Law?
|
|
The Answer
We present you here with a concise ruling. For a more intricate elucidation, please see the detailed explanation below.
Rina was wrong for misleading Shana but is not responsible to pay Shana for her losses. Stern may sue the inspector for his losses due to the flawed advice.
The dog walker is liable only if it was clear that the driver was compelled to rely solely upon the dog walker's directives (i.e. the driver could not see and the dog walker was cognitively involved in directing the driver or the driver told him, "I'm relying on you!)". |
|
Detailed Explanation
Three Terribly Tragic Tips invokes the following laws.
1. Do not misleed your fellow[Vayikra 19: 14].
2. A professional or layman paid for issuing a critical judgment or assesment (i.e. whether a specific coin is legal tender, counterfeit, clipped etc.) who errs in his/her judgement or assessment is liable to pay his/her employer for the losses he/she incurred by relying upon the erroneous verdict.
However, when a judgement was solicited for free, the arbiter can only be liable if it was spoken or undisputably clear from the setting, that the solicitor was relying solely upon the arbiter's verdict.
Parenthetically, when offering a free assessment to an individual who conveyed his/her reliance on the ruling, a highly trained assessor (who usually does not err) will be absolved as we view his/her error as an accident, while a layman would be liable for he/she should have refrained from giving his/her unprofessional opinion [Choshen Mishpat 306: 6].
Application:
Rina was wrong for misleading Shana. Nevertheless, while Shana relied on Rina's advice, generally when looking in to a potential spouse, one does not rely on one person's report alone. Additionally, Shana was not paying Rina for her services. Unless Shana made it clear to Rina that her word would "make it or break it", Rina would be absolved from paying for any losses incurred due to the mistaken engagement.
Stern paid the inspector for his assessment. The inspector erred. As such, the inspector is liable for the losses Stern incurred for relying upon Stern's review.
The dog walker was not being paid for his services. He can only be held responsible if it was clear to the dog walker from the setting that the driver was compelled to rely solely upon the dogwalker's guidance, which arguably is usually not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
Although we aim to present the correct ruling, varying details are always important and decisively influence every individual case. Our readers are thus encouraged to present their personal cases to a competent authority and not solely rely on the information provided.
Together...for a better world
You can help build a better world. Just invite your friends and family to subscribe to
Fellow Weekly.
To join this mailing list, please click here
or send an email to weekly@projectfellow.org with the word subscribe in the subject line
CLICK HERE to DONATE to PROJECT FELLOW TODAY!
|
|
A project of
Yesharim Foundation for Ethical Law
105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet, Jerusalem
ISRAEL 02-581-6337
USA 845-335-5516 |
|
