Court rulings and settlements in cases where clients came with the engineering expert opinion of Arad Bedek Bayit: what was found, what was awarded, and the full ruling to read.
Residents' representatives of the shared building at 9 HaGila St., Netanya v. Oren-HaSela Construction and Investments Ltd.
District Court, Center-Lod, Civil Case 27717-04-20, judgment of March 16, 2022.
A residential building in Netanya where defects were discovered in the exterior stone cladding. Engineer Ron Arad submitted an expert opinion on behalf of the residents and a supplementary expert opinion, and concluded that there was no alternative to replacing the entire cladding. The court accepted his position: "I accept the position of engineer Arad", and it was ruled that the building's exterior stone cladding must be replaced in full.
The outcome of the ruling, following the expert opinion of Arad Bedek Bayit: ₪3,498,300 to repair the cladding (plus linkage and interest), ₪200,000 compensation for emotional distress and ₪200,000 in attorney's fees. In total:
₪3,898,300
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Residents' representatives of the shared building at 12 HaPardes St., Kiryat Ono v. Azorim Investment, Development and Construction Company Ltd. and Tz.M.H. Hamerman
Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrates' Court, Civil Case 12582-10-09, judgment of March 31, 2019.
A residential building in Kiryat Ono where various defects were discovered during the inspection period. While the lawsuit was under way, urgent repairs costing a large sum were carried out on the stone cladding system around the building. In addition, following the expert opinion of Arad Bedek Bayit, the residents were awarded against the construction companies ₪104,826 according to the expert opinion, ₪19,500 for the delay in the cladding work and ₪60,058 in costs, as well as ₪10,000 as part of the attorney's fees. In total, before the additional attorney's fee of 17.55%:
₪194,384
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Settlement agreement: two buildings near the sea in Ashdod
A settlement agreement reached during a lawsuit between two high-rise buildings near the sea in Ashdod and a well-known construction company. During the warranty period various defects were discovered in the buildings, above all serious problems in the exterior stone cladding and problems in the emergency systems. The settlement included a full repair of the stone cladding and the repair of other significant defects.
Stein v. Moris Agbaba Building Contractor
Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrates' Court, ruling of 29 June 2022.
A five-room apartment in Beit Shemesh, handed over in 2016. Engineer Ron Arad inspected the apartment in 2018 and estimated the cost of repairing the defects at ₪148,204. Some defects were repaired during the proceedings, and the court awarded compensation for the rest, mainly the flooring. The contractor's counterclaim of ₪225,000 was dismissed.
Awarded following the expert opinion of Arad Bedek Bayit: ₪127,019, plus ₪20,000 in legal fees.
₪127,019
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Settlement with the force of a ruling: Eisenstein v. Shochat
Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrates' Court, case 65345-07, ruling of 6 April 2011.
The parties reached a settlement, and the court gave it the force of a ruling: the defendants pay the plaintiff ₪45,167 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Settlement: Schneider v. Dekel Al Mivnim and others
Hadera Magistrates' Court, case 8353-09, settlement approved in 2011.
Apartment buyers sued the developer and the contractors who built the apartment over construction defects. In the settlement the defendants undertook to pay the plaintiffs ₪40,000 in full and final settlement of the claim. The plaintiffs were represented by attorney Ram Oren.
₪40,000
Mediation settlement with a shower enclosure company
Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrates' Court, mediation settlement of October 2009.
In mediation the parties agreed that the defendant would repair the defects: replacing the hinges and seals of the shower enclosures, repairing the shower in the children's room, replacing the glass wall in the kitchen and completing the extractor hood. The agreement was given the force of a ruling.
Settlement with a contractor, Hod HaSharon
A settlement of July 2007 between the buyer of an apartment in Hod HaSharon and the contractor who built it. The contractor undertook to pay the buyer ₪45,000 in three instalments for the defects in the apartment. The names of the parties have been blacked out.
Common property: residents of 5 Gut Levin St., Haifa v. Shikun Ovdim and others
A high-rise building with defects in its exterior cladding system,
including faulty anchoring of the cladding to the wall and aesthetic flaws.
Awarded to the residents against the construction companies, following the expert opinion of Arad Bedek Bayit:₪1,018,163
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Tangi v. A. Pamini Development and Investments Ltd.
Two 7-story buildings with a shared parking garage. The main defects discovered:
- Dampness in the underground parking garage.
- Dampness at the lobby windows.
- A drainage problem in a service cabinet.
The ruling included compensation for the construction defects and for emotional distress, and reimbursement of expenses.
Awarded to the residents, following the expert opinion of Arad Bedek Bayit:₪238,902
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Posti v. Hajaj and v. Alum Amin Ltd.
A single-family house in Tel Mond where various defects were discovered during the contractor's warranty period, mainly:
- Waterproofing problems at the windows.
- Waterproofing problems at the sills of the doors to the garden.
- Cracks in the colored finish plaster on the facades.
- Defects in the safe room (mamad)
- Windows
Awarded to Posti against the two defendants, following the expert opinion of Arad Bedek Bayit:
₪130,815
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Ben Saadia v. Levi Avi 10 Development and Construction Ltd.
An apartment in Rehovot where various defects were discovered during the inspection period (tkufat bedek). Mainly:
- Dampness.
- Doors.
- Flooring.
Awarded to Ben Saadia against Levi Avi 10 Development and Construction Ltd.,
following the Arad expert opinion:Common areas (Mishol Gil, Kfar Saba) v. Minrav
A high-rise building where various defects were discovered during the inspection period. Mainly:
- Problems in the electromechanical systems.
- Problems with the water heaters.
- Problems with the exterior plaster.
- Finishing problems.
In the course of the lawsuit Minrav repaired most of the defects, and for the remaining ones it paid financial compensation, emotional distress and court costs totaling
₪292,237
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Dayan v. Pisgot Real Estate
An apartment in Yeruham where various defects were discovered during the inspection period. Mainly:
- Dampness.
- Flooring.
- A kitchen cabinet that was made smaller.
The ruling included compensation for the construction defects, emotional distress and expenses.
Awarded to Dayan against Pisgot Real Estate, owing to the Arad expert opinion:Comforti v. Binyanei Bar-Amana
A two-family house where various defects were discovered during the inspection period, along with non-conformity with the technical specification.
To read about rulings in cases of non-conformity with standards, see: court ruling on non-conformity with the specification.
Awarded to Comforti against Binyanei Bar-Amana, following the Arad expert opinion:Settlement agreement: a client v. a well-known Jerusalem company
A settlement between the construction company and a client who wanted to finish the legal proceedings as quickly as possible. What stands out in this case is the decisive contribution of having an engineer accompany the client to the meeting with the court's expert.
The court set the client's compensation at ₪73,000.
Chen v. Binyanei Amana and Adieli
A house in Ma'ale Mikhmas where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.
The main defects:- Dampness.
- Flooring problems.
- Non-conformities with the technical specification and the plans.
Awarded to Chen against Amana and the contractor working for it, following the Arad expert opinion:
Yosipov v. Eliyahu Givati
A house in Rehovot where various construction defects were discovered during the warranty period.
The main defects:- Interior stairs.
- Dampness.
- Plaster.
Awarded to Yosipov against Eliyahu Givati, as a result of the Arad expert opinion:
Toati v. Davidson Communication Ltd., March 2014
An apartment in Tel Aviv where various defects were discovered during the inspection period. Mainly:
- A safe room (mamad) smaller than required.
- Dampness.
Awarded to Mr. Toati against the developer,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:Klachevsky v. Afikei El-Ron Project Development Ltd., October 2013
An apartment in Mazkeret Batya where various defects were discovered during the inspection period. Mainly:
- Condensation caused by faulty thermal insulation.
- Dampness.
Awarded to Klachevsky against Afikei El-Ron Project Development Ltd., thanks to the Arad expert opinion:
Mediation agreement with a contractor: Amirei Gan, March 2014
An expert engineer from Arad Bedek Bayit found defects in an apartment from the contractor Amirei Gan: various construction defects such as window glass that was not safety glass, dampness from the windows and from a bathroom, and more.
The plaintiff, Mr. Suan, had ordered Arad's inspection services.
The contractor showed willingness to make the repairs, but because the repairs dragged on, the resident went to court. With the consent of the parties, the court referred the case to mediation.
Under the mediation agreement Mr. Suan (the resident) received ₪50,000.Druker v. Rami Shabiro Engineering, Construction and Investments Ltd.
An apartment in Kiryat Ono where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.
Mainly dampness.
Awarded to Yakir against Netanel Group,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:
Repair of the defects plus financial compensation of ₪14,000Pilot v. Peretz Bonei Hanegev Ltd.
An apartment in Kfar Yona where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.
Awarded to Pilot against Peretz Bonei Hanegev,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:Zohar v. Artopro, a Belgian-window contractor
A house in Beit Yehoshua where the findings included water penetrating through the Belgian (steel) windows because of faulty sealing.
Awarded to the client against Artopro,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:
₪101,725 plus VAT, plus court costs, plus emotional distressSrebrenik v. Haskiya
A house in Rishon LeZion that had undergone renovation work.
Awarded to Srebrenik against
the renovation contractor Haskiya, thanks to the Arad expert opinion:Savyon v. Chein (contractor)
An apartment in Rishon LeZion where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.
Awarded to Savyon against the contractor, thanks to the Arad expert opinion:
Common areas of a residential building
The building committee v. A. Teshuva and M. Cohen Construction and Hospitality Ltd.
A residential building in Netanya where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.Awarded to the residents of the building against the construction company,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:₪238,549
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Yakir v. Netanel Gerom Ltd.
An apartment in Tel Aviv where various defects were discovered during the inspection period. Mainly:
- Dampness from the balcony.
- A room smaller than the 8 sq m required by law that was sold as a room.
Awarded to Yakir against Netanel Group,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:₪189,532
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)Buki v. Ara Engineering and Construction Works Ltd.
An apartment in Gedera where various defects were discovered during the inspection period. Mainly:
- Stability problems
Awarded to Buki against Ara,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:₪134,616
Read the ruling (PDF, Hebrew)A construction defects case: Sagi v. Amirei Gan
An apartment in Zichron Yaakov where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.
Awarded to Sagi against Amirei Gan,
thanks to the Arad expert opinion:Mizrahi v. Yuval Alon Construction Company Ltd.
An apartment on Hate'ena Street in Nesher where various defects were discovered during the inspection period, chiefly flaws in the flooring. Awarded to Mizrahi against Yuval Alon, thanks to the Arad expert opinion: for the defects, ₪30,531.49; for vacating the apartment, ₪5,000; for attorney's fees, ₪6,000; for emotional distress, ₪3,000. Total awarded: ₪44,531.49
Barda v. Tz. Landau
A house in Moshav Matzliach.
Various defects were discovered in the house during the inspection period, among them flooring problems.Awarded to Mr. Barda against the contractor:
For the defects: ₪41,250
Emotional distress: ₪5,000
Attorney's fees: ₪5,000
Total awarded: ₪52,250Haker v. a contractor who asked not to be named
A two-level house in Moshav Ein Yaakov.
Various defects were discovered in the house during the inspection period, among them dampness.
Awarded to Haker against the contractor:
For the defects: ₪84,258
Court costs: ₪4,000
Attorney's fees: ₪11,000
Total awarded: ₪99,258Ardreich v. Azorim Construction Ltd.
A house in Modiin where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.
Among them, dampness and non-standard plaster in the safe room (mamad).
The home inspection (bedek bayit) expert opinion listed defects worth ₪122,632Awarded to Ardreich against Azorim:
For the defects: ₪46,883
For court costs: ₪3,000
For attorney's fees: ₪7,000
Total awarded: ₪56,883Mediation settlement: Weinstein v. Rami Shabiro Engineering and Construction Ltd.
An apartment in Petah Tikva.
Various defects were discovered in the home during the inspection period, among them flooring problems.
The parties went to mediation, where it was decided:
the home inspection repairs will be carried out, except for repairs to the kitchen cabinet, plus financial compensation to Weinstein: ₪20,000Peretz v. A.H. Migdalei HaSharon Ltd.
An apartment in Netanya where various defects were discovered during the inspection period.
The home inspection expert opinion listed defects worth ₪85,040Awarded to Peretz against Migdalei HaSharon:
For the defects: ₪28,114
For court costs: ₪1,500
For attorney's fees: ₪4,000
Total awarded: ₪33,614Settlement agreement between a client of Arad Bedek Bayit and the Clal insurance company
Location: a house in Pardesiya that was flooded.
The damage: the flood caused various kinds of damage, such as wet sand under the basement flooring, sinking paving in the yard and so on.
The dispute in brief: the insurance company and our client disagreed about the source of the flood, the liability and the extent of the damage.After an engineering expert opinion was ordered and a lawsuit was filed, the parties reached a settlement.
The settlement in brief:
Financial compensation from the insurance company to the client: ₪45,000