Court Rules Injured Man Keeps Post-Separation Insurance Payouts
A Haifa Family Court ruled that an injured Israeli man does not have to share his multi-million shekel insurance payout with his ex-partner, distinguishing between funds received during and after their separation.
A man injured in a car accident, leaving him unable to work, received over four million shekels from his insurance companies. However, his estranged partner demanded a share of the funds. The Family Court in Haifa ruled that the man is not required to share the money he received after their separation, especially since it was uncertain whether he would even receive those future funds at the time they split up.
The couple lived as common-law partners for 17 years and had three children together. About a decade ago, the man, who worked in the haitech sector, was injured in a car accident that led to prolonged rehabilitation and left him permanently unfit to return to his job. Today, he survives entirely on the insurance payouts he received following the accident.
Insurance Payouts and the Split
He received funds from two different insurance companies. The first company paid him one million shekels while the couple was still living together, which he deposited into their joint bank account. The second insurance company paid him 3,690,000 shekels after they had already separated.
One day, the partner abruptly left the home and transferred 90,000 shekels to her personal account. Consequently, the man sued her demanding the return of the funds. The woman claimed she fled the home due to alleged violence on his part and argued she was entitled to half of all the compensation he received, citing household expenses paid from their joint account and noting she was the sole earner after the accident.
The Court's Ruling
Judge Tal Pefferni, Deputy President of the Family Court in Haifa, examined the timing of the insurance deposits. He ruled that the partner intended to share the funds from the first insurance company, which were received while the couple was still cohabiting, despite ongoing friction.
"A determination of an intention to share property applies to funds actually held by the parties, and it is doubtful whether this can apply to future, speculative funds when it is unknown if and when they will be received," wrote Judge Tal Pefferni.
However, the judge determined that the larger compensation from the second insurance company was not intended to be shared, as it arrived post-separation. Moreover, since the woman already benefited from the first payout, granting her a share of the second would amount to double compensation. The court ordered a financial expert to balance the 90,000 shekels taken by the woman in accordance with the final verdict.
