Developer and Contractor Liability in Tama 38 Work: A Case Study from Ramle

By: Attorney Moshe Taieb

Developer and Contractor Liability in Tama 38 Work: A Case Study from Ramle

In recent years, renovation and reinforcement work on buildings under Tama 38 has become very common. Along with this, complex disputes have arisen regarding developer liability for damage caused to residents during the work. At our firm we deal with these issues regularly, and the ruling recently handed down by the Ramle District Court vividly illustrates the complexity hidden in such claims.

In the case before us, a plaintiff was forced to vacate his apartment when concrete pieces fell from his ceiling during Tama 38 work in the apartment above. The plaintiff included in his claim a sum of 313,338 NIS against the contractor company, the insurance company, and the subcontractor that carried out the work.

Background of the Case and How the Damage Occurred

In December 2014, the contractor company R.M. Kaneh and Binyan Yizamut Ltd. signed an agreement with the building residents at 54 Deror Street, Yavneh to carry out renovation and reinforcement work as required under Tama 38. When the work began in February 2017, the apartment above the plaintiff’s started to collapse, causing concrete to fall into his ceiling.

Over time the situation deteriorated. In November 2017 it was determined that his apartment was unsafe for habitation, and he was given no choice but to leave. From May 2017 he began living in a rented apartment together with a friend on Loa Goldberg Street in Lod. Although he turned to the project management, which promised to fix the damage, nothing was done about it.

What the Total Claim Included

The plaintiff included four main components in his claim, totalling 313,338 NIS:

Repair costs of 178,893 NIS to cover the cost of repairing the damage caused to the apartment during the work. Rental expenses of 27,300 NIS for the period during which the plaintiff was forced to live in a rented apartment. Loss of enjoyment from the apartment of 85,000 NIS due to his inability to live there. Mental anguish of 20,000 NIS for the stress and discomfort he endured.

The Line of Defence of Each Defendant

Each defendant took a different position. The contractor company argued that the plaintiff was partly to blame and that the damage was caused as a result of repairs carried out by other neighbours, not because of its work.

The court rejected these arguments wholesale. Judge Udi Hakar made one thing clear: the Sale (Apartments) Law imposes mandatory provisions that cannot be contracted out of. This is not an opinion — it is law. Beyond that, the court established a key principle: the developer is required to factor in the risks of delays in permits as part of planning its project. The buyer does not need to bear the developer’s problems.

The insurance company, Elon, for its part argued that the events causing the damage are not covered under the policy that was issued. This argument was also dismissed. The contractor’s insurance company tried to avoid liability by claiming it was the responsibility of another party.

The project management company also rejected any connection to the work that caused the damage. Each defendant tried to shift responsibility onto the other.

The Key Legal Principles in This Case

In Tama 38 construction-damage cases there are some central legal principles. The developer and contractor bear an enhanced duty of care towards adjacent residents. This is not merely a moral obligation — it is a clear legal obligation enshrined in current case law.

Moreover, when concrete ceiling collapses occur following construction work, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. The meaning is that the very existence of the damage testifies to negligence, without the need to prove specifically how the negligence occurred.

In addition, our firm is well-versed in the provisions of the Protection of the Tenant’s Interests (Law No. 5741-1981) and its requirements regarding developer liability towards buyers and residents in the work area.

What Developers and Contractors Should Know

From this case it emerges how important it is to adopt proper safety measures during renovation and reinforcement work. Developers and contractors must ensure they have appropriate insurance and take every step required to prevent damage to residents.

We advise residents who are likely to be affected by Tama 38 work to demand from the developer a clear written agreement covering compensation for damage and also to document every problem that arises. Prompt and up-to-date documentation of arising problems can prevent the situation from worsening.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a developer liable for compensation to a resident harmed by Tama 38 work?

According to the ruling, a developer conducting Tama 38 work bears liability for damage caused to residents during the work, provided it can be proved there is a causal connection between them and the damage.

What does compensation for construction damage include?

Compensation may include repair costs, alternative rental expenses, loss of enjoyment of the apartment, and in appropriate cases also mental anguish and additional consequential damages.

How do you prove a causal connection between the work and the damage?

Expert opinion can help, together with photographs of the condition before and after the work, and witness testimony from people who saw what happened. When a concrete collapse occurs, the res ipsa loquitur principle sometimes applies.

Is the developer’s insurance company liable for damage to residents?

That depends on the insurance policy terms. It is important to check that the policy covers third-party damage and also adjacent properties. If the insurance company refuses to cover, it can be sued directly.

For free advice, contact us now.

The above is not specific legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact our firm.