commercial law - insurance (lex 2014)

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia First Release 2014 1

Presidential Decree No. 612 - Insurance Code

Sec. 2 (1) - Contract of insurance

Section 2 (1) of the Insurance Code defines a contract of insurance as an agreementwhereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damageor liability arising from an unknown or contingent event. An insurance contract existswhere the following elements concur:

1. The insured has an insurable interest;

2. The insured is subject to a risk of loss by the happening of the designed *(1)peril;

3. The insurer assumes the risk;

4. Such assumption of risk is part of a general scheme to distribute actual lossesamong a large group of persons bearing a similar risk and

5. In consideration of the insurer's promise, the insured pays a premium.

Phil. Health Care Providers, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.167330 September 18, 2009

Insurance is a contract whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnifyanother against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event.The consideration is the premium, which must be paid at the time and in the way andmanner specified in the policy, and if not so paid, the policy will lapse and beforfeited by its own terms.

Antonio A. Tibay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119655, May 24, 1996

Philamcare Health Systems vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125678, March 18, 2002

Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. vs. Carponia T. Ebrado, G.R. No. L-44059,October 28, 1977

Definition of contract of insurance

Contracts of insurance are contracts of indemnity upon the terms and conditionsspecified in the policy. The agreement has the force of law between the parties. The


terms of the policy constitute the measure of the insurer's liability. If such terms areclear and unambiguous, they must be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary andpopular sense.

Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85141, November28, 1989

Pacific Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41014, November 28, 1988

Sec. 2 (2) - Doing an insurance business or transacting an insurance business

Various courts in the United States, whose jurisprudence has a persuasive effect onour decisions, have determined that HMOs are not in the insurance business. One testthat they have applied is whether the assumption of risk and indemnification of loss(which are elements of an insurance business) are the principal object and purpose ofthe organization or whether they are merely incidental to its business. If these are theprincipal objectives, the business is that of insurance. But if they are merely incidentaland service is the principal purpose, then the business is not insurance.

Applying the "principal objects and purpose test", there is significant Americancase law supporting the argument that a corporation (such as an HMO, whether or notorganized for profit), whose main object is to provide the members of a group withhealth services, is not engaged in the insurance business.

Consequently, the mere presence of risk would be insufficient to override theprimary purpose of the business to provide medical services as needed, with paymentmade directly to the provider of these services. In short, even if petitioner assumes therisk of paying the cost of these services even if significantly more than what themember has prepaid, it nevertheless cannot be considered as being engaged in theinsurance business.

Phil. Health Care Providers, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.167330, September 18, 2009


Sec. 8 - When mortgagor insures mortgaged property

Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113899, October 13,1999

Sec. 10 - Insurable Interest

An insurable interest is one of the most basic and essential requirements in aninsurance contract. In general, an insurable interest is that interest which a person isdeemed to have in the subject matter insured, where he has a relation or connectionwith or concern in it, such that the person will derive pecuniary benefit or advantagefrom the preservation of the subject matter insured and will suffer pecuniary loss ordamage from its destruction, termination, or injury by the happening of the eventinsured against. The existence of an insurable interest gives a person the legal right toinsure the subject matter of the policy of insurance. Section 10 of the Insurance Codeindeed provides that every person has an insurable interest in his own life. Section 19of the same code also states that an interest in the life or health of a person insuredmust exist when the insurance takes effect, but need not exist thereafter or when theloss occurs.

Violeta R. Lalican vs. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., G.R. No. 183526, August 25,2009

Hilario Gercio vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, G.R. No. 23703, September 28,1925

Armando Geagonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114427, February 6, 1995

El Oriente, Fabrica De Tabacos, Inc. vs. Juan Posadas, G.R. No. 34774, September21, 1931

Tai Tong Chuache & Co. vs. Insurance Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-55397,February 29, 1988


Sec. 11 - Right to change beneficiary

Hilario Gercio vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, G.R. No. 23703, September 28,1925


Philippine American Life Insurance Company vs. Gregorio g. Pineda, G.R. No. 54216,July 19, 1989

Sec. 13 - Insurable interest

Definition of Insurable Interest

Section 13 of the Insurance Code defines insurable interest in property as everyinterest in property, whether real or personal, or any relation thereto, or liability inrespect thereof, of such nature that a contemplated peril might directly damnify theinsured. In principle, anyone has an insurable interest in property who derives abenefit from its existence or would suffer loss from its destruction whether he has orhas not any title in, or lien upon or possession of the property. Insurable interest inproperty may consist in (a) an existing interest; (b) an inchoate interest founded on anexisting interest; or (c) an expectancy, coupled with an existing interest in that out ofwhich the expectancy arises.


Sec. 14 - Insurable Interest in property

Mrs. Henry E. Harding, et al. vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co., G. R. No. 12707,August 10, 1918


Sec. 17 - Insurable interest in property

A lessee has an insurable interest in the equipment and motor vehicles leased.Section 17 of the Insurance Code provides that the measure of an insurable interest inproperty is the extent to which the insured might be damnified by loss or injurythereof.

Vicente Ong Lim Sing, Jr. vs. Feb Leasing & Finance Corp., G.R. No. 168115, June 8,2007

Sec. 18 - Contract of insurance on property not enforceable except for benefitof person having insurable interest in property insured.

Insurable interest in the property insured must exist at the time the insurance takeseffect and at the time the loss occurs. The basis of such requirement of insurableinterest in property insured is based on sound public policy: to prevent a person fromtaking out an insurance policy on property upon which he has no insurable interest andcollecting the proceeds of said policy in case of loss of the property.

Sps. Nilo Cha vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124520, August 18, 1997

Sec. 19 - Interest in property insured

Violeta R. Lalican vs. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., G.R. No. 183526, August 25,2009


Sec. 25 - Void stipulations

Sps. Nilo Cha vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124520, August 18, 1997



Sec. 26 - Concealment

Concealment

Thelma Vda. De Canilang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92492, June 17, 1993

Section 26 of The Insurance Code is explicit in requiring a party to a contract ofinsurance to communicate to the other, in good faith, all facts within his knowledgewhich are material to the contract and as to which he makes no warranty, and whichthe other has no means of ascertaining.

Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105135, June22, 1995



Bernardo Argente vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co., G.R. No. 28499, March 19, 1928

Ignacio Saturnino vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-16163,February 28, 1963

Sec. 27 - Concealment entitles injured party to rescind

Philamcare Health Systems vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125678, March 18, 2002

Ignacio Saturnino vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-16163,


February 28, 1963

Yu Pang Cheng vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-12465, May 29, 1959

Sec. 28 - Parties to contract of insurance must communicate facts within theirknowledge

"Concealment exists where the assured had knowledge of a fact material to therisk, and honesty, good faith, and fair dealing requires that he should communicate itto the assurer, but he designedly and intentionally withholds the same."

It has also been held "that the concealment must, in the absence of inquiries, be notonly material, but fraudulent, or the fact must have been intentionally withheld."

Ng Gan Zee vs. Asian Crusader Life Assurance Corp., G.R. No. L-30685, May 30, 1983


Sec. 29 - Intentional or fraudulent omission to communicate information

The basis of the rule vitiating the contract in cases of concealment is that itmisleads or deceives the insurer into accepting the risk, or accepting it at the rate ofpremium agreed upon. The insurer, relying upon the belief that the assured willdisclose every material fact within his actual or presumed knowledge, is misled into abelief that the circumstance withheld does not exist, and he is thereby induced toestimate the risk upon a false basis that it does not exist.

Bernardo Argente vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co., G.R. No. 28499, March 19, 1928

Sec. 31 - Materiality of concealment



Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105135, June22, 1995

Sec. 38 - Interpretation

Cathay Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 76145, June 30, 1987


Sec. 44 - When representation is deemed false

James Stokes vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-34768, February 24, 1984

Sec. 48, par. 2 - Incontestability clause

The so-called "incontestability clause" precludes the insurer from raising thedefenses of false representations or concealment of material facts insofar as health andprevious diseases are concerned if the insurance has been in force for at least twoyears during the insured's lifetime.

Emilio Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 48049, June 29, 1989

Sec. 49 - Policy of Insurance

Diosdado C. Ty vs. First National Surety & Assurance Co, Inc., G.R. No. L-16138, April


29, 1961

Ang Giok Chip vs. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, G.R. No. 33637,December 31, 1931

Francisco Jarque vs. Smith, G.R. No. 32986, November 11, 1930

Non-presentation of the insurance contract or policy is not necessarily fatal. . . thepresentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable . . .before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value of the lostcargo in the exercise of its subrogatory right. . . . The right of subrogation accruessimply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.

Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 171406, April 4, 2011,citing Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 420 Phil. 824 (2001)

Sec. 51 - Contents of insurance policy

Finman General Assurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100970,September 2, 1992

Fortunata Lucero Viuda De Sindayen vs. The Insular Life Assurance Co., G.R. No.41702, September 4, 1935


Sec. 52 - Cover note

Pacific Timber Export Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38613, February25, 1982

Sec. 53 - Application of insurance proceeds


It ruled that it is only in cases where there are no beneficiaries designated, or whenthe only designated beneficiary is disqualified, that the proceeds should be paid to theestate of the insured.

Heirs of Loreto C. Maramag vs. Eva Verna de Guzman Maramag, et al., G.R. No.181132 June 5, 2009

RCBC vs. Courts of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 128833, 128834 and 128866, April 20, 1998

Sherman Shafer vs. Regional Trial Court Olongapo City, Branch 75, G.R. No. 78848,November 14, 1988


Sec. 57 - A policy may benefit whosoever becomes the owner of the insuredinterest

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Insurance Co. of North America, G.R. No. 168402, August 6,2008

Sec. 60 - Open policy

Development Insurance Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.L-71360, July 16, 1986

Sec. 61 - Valued policy

Delfin Nario, et al. vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-22796,June 26, 1967


Sec. 63 - Void stipulation on period of commencement of action

Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89741, March 13, 1991

Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124050. June 19, 1997

Luis Del Castillo vs. Metropolitan Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-2038, March 4, 1950

Sec. 65 - Notice of cancellation

Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Gregoria Cruz Arnaldo, G.R. No. L-67835, October 12,1987

Sec. 70 - Express warranty

Ang Giok Chip vs. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, G.R. No. 33637,December 31, 1931

Sec. 72 - Warranty for act or omission

Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-4611, December17, 1955

Sec. 74 - Violation of material warranty

General Insurance & Surety Corp. vs. Ng Hua, G.R. No. L-14373, January 30, 1960


Sec. 75 - Policy may declare that violation of specified provisions thereof shallavoid it


Sec. 77 - Payment of premium

Laura Velasco vs. Sergio A. F. Apostol, G.R. No. 44588, May 9, 1989

Arturo P. Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83122, October 19, 1990

We hold that the subject policies are valid even if the premiums were paid oninstallments. The records clearly show that petitioner and private respondent intendedsubject insurance policies to be binding and effective notwithstanding the staggeredpayment of the premiums. The initial insurance contract entered into in 1982 wasrenewed in 1983, then in 1984. In those three (3) years, the insurer accepted all theinstallment payments. Such acceptance of payments speaks loudly of the insurer'sintention to honor the policies it issued to petitioner. Certainly, basic principles ofequity and fairness would not allow the insurer to continue collecting and acceptingthe premiums, although paid on installments, and later deny liability on the lameexcuse that the premiums were not prepaid in full.

Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95546,November 6, 1992

South Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102253,June 2, 1995

Antonio A. Tibay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119655, May 24, 1996

UCPB General Insurance Co. vs. Masagana Telamart, G.R. No. 137172, June 15, 1999

The general rule in insurance laws is that unless the premium is paid the insurancepolicy is not valid and binding. The only exceptions are life and industrial lifeinsurance.


American Home Assurance Co. vs. Antonio Chua, G.R. No. 130421, June 28, 1999

Pedro Arce vs. Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-28501, September 30,1982

Santos B. Areola vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95641, September 22, 1994

Luzon Surety Company, Inc. vs. Pastor T. Quebrar, G.R. No. L-40517, January 31,1984

(now Section 79)

Sec. 78 - Conclusive evidence of payment of premium


American Home Assurance Co. vs. Antonio Chua, G.R. No. 130421, June 28, 1999

Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. vs. Woodworks, Inc., G.R. No. L-22684,August 31, 1967

(now Section 80 of RA 10607)

Sec. 79 - When insured is entitled to return of premium

Great Pacific Life Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-57308, April23, 1990


Sec. 84 - Insurer liable for loss of which a peril insured against was theproximate cause


Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83376, May 29,1989


Sec. 86 - Excepted peril in case of loss

Paris Manila Perfume Co. vs. Phoenix Assurance Co., G.R. No. 25845, December 17,1926


Sec. 87 - Insurer not liable for loss caused by the willful act or through theconnivance of the insured

East Furniture Inc. vs. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. of New York, G.R. No. 35848,November 22, 1932

The East Furniture Inc., vs. Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd., G.R. No.35849, November 22, 1932

The East Furniture Inc. vs. The Continental Insurance Co. of New York, G.R. No.35850, November 22, 1932


Sec. 88 - In insurance against fire, insurer is exonerated if notice is not given tohim without unnecessary delay




Sec. 89 - Proof of loss

Yu Ban Chuan vs. Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-19851, June 29,1965


Sec. 93 - Double insurance


New Life Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94071, March 31, 1992


Ulpiano Santa Ana vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co., G.R. No. 32889, November20, 1930

Union Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. vs. Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., G.R. No.L-27932, October 30, 1972


Sec. 95 - Reinsurance

Philippine American Life Insurance Company vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-19255,January 18, 1968

Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No.L-23447, July 31, 1970

Ivor Robert Dayton Gibson vs. Pedro A. Revilla, et al., G.R. No. L-41432, July 30, 1979

Artex Development Co., Inc., vs. Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-29508,June 27, 1973



Sec. 99 - Marine insurance

Cathay Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76145, June 30, 1987

Choa Tiek Seng vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84507, March 15, 1990


Malayan Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119599, March 20, 1997

Oriental Assurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94052, August 9, 1991

Pacific Timber Export Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38613, February25, 1982

Isabela Roque vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66935, November 11, 1985

Delsan Transport Lines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127897, November 15, 2001


Sec. 113 - Implied warranty that ship is seaworthy

Isabela Roque vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66935, November 11, 1985

Phil-Am General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116940, June 11,1997


Sec. 129 - Total loss may be either actual or constructive




Sec. 130 - Actual total loss

Pan Malayan Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95070, September5, 1991


Sec. 133, par. 2 - Additional premium for extension of liability

Malayan Insurance Corp. vs. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 119599, March 20, 1997


Sec. 139 - Abandonment of thing insured



Sec. 167 - Fire insurance

Rizal Surety & Insurance Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112360, July 18,2000

Union Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. vs. Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., G.R. No.


L-27932, October 30, 1972

Paulo Ang, et al. vs. Fulton Fire Insurance Co., et al., G.R. No. L-15862, July 31, 1961


Sec. 174 - Casualty insurance

Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82036, May 22,1997

Jewel Villacorta vs. Insurance Commission, G.R. No. L-54171, October 28, 1980

Figuracion Vda. De Maglana vs. Francisco Z. Consolacion, G.R. No. 60506, August 6,1992

Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115278, May 23,1995

Jacqueline Jimenez Vda. De Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103883, November14, 1996

Association of Baptists For World Evangelism, Inc. vs. Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc.,G.R. No. L-28772, September 21, 1983

Finman General Assurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100970,September 2, 1992

Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115278, May 23,1995

Agapito Gutierrez vs. Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-26827, June 29,1984

Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-59919, November 26,1986

Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-36413, September 26,1988

Andrew Palermo vs. Pyramid Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-36480, May 31, 1988

Pan Malayan Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81026, April 3, 1990

Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96452, May 7, 1992


FCP Credit Corporation, vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96493, May 7, 1992

Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92383, July 17, 1992

James Stokes vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-34768, February 24, 1984


Sec. 175 - Contract of suretyship

Mercantile Insurance Co. vs. Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., G.R. No. 43862, January 13,1989

Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76509, December 15,1989

Section 175 of the Insurance Code defines a suretyship as "a contract or agreementwhereby a party, called the suretyship, guarantees the performance by another party,called the principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor of a thirdparty, called the obligee. It includes official recognizances, stipulations, bonds, orundertakings issued under Act 536, as amended."

Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. vs. Equinox Land Corp., G.R. Nos.152505-06, September 13, 2007

Intra-Strata Assurance Corp., et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 156571, July 9,2008


Sec. 176 - Liability of surety or sureties

Finman General Assurance Corp. vs. William Inocencio, G.R. Nos. 90273-75,November 15, 1989

Under Section 176 of the Insurance Code, the liability of petitioner and RadonSecurity is solidary in nature. There is solidary liability only when the obligationexpressly so states, or when the law so provides, or when the nature of the obligation


so requires. Since the law provides that the liability of the surety company and theobligor or principal is joint and several, then either or both of them may be proceededagainst for the money award.

Raul Sesbreo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89252, May 24, 1993

AFP General Insurance Corp. vs. Noel Molina, et al., G.R. No. 151133, June 30, 2008


Sec. 177 - Surety is entitled to payment of premium

Philippine Pryce Assurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107062,February 21, 1994

AFP General Insurance Corp. vs. Noel Molina, et al., G.R. No. 151133, June 30, 2008


Sec. 179 - Life insurance

Luz Pineda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105562, September 27, 1993


Delfin Nario, et al. vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-22796,June 26, 1967

Simon De La Cruz vs. Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-21574, June30, 1966


Sec. 241 - Unfair claim settlement practices


Section 241 of the Insurance Code provides that no insurance company doingbusiness in the Philippines shall refuse without just cause to pay or settle claimsarising under coverages provided by its policies. And, under Section 243, the insurerhas 30 days after proof of loss is received and ascertainment of the loss or damagewithin which to pay the claim. If such ascertainment is not had within 60 days fromreceipt of evidence of loss, the insurer has 90 days to pay or settle the claim. And, incase the insurer refuses or fails to pay within the prescribed time, the insured shall beentitled to interest on the proceeds of the policy for the duration of delay at the rate oftwice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board. Notably, Seaboard alreadyincurred delay when it failed to settle petitioner New World's claim as Section 243required. Under Section 244, a prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in paymentof the claim is created by the failure of the insurer to pay the claim within the timefixed in Section 243. Consequently, Seaboard should pay interest on the proceeds ofthe policy for the duration of the delay until the claim is fully satisfied at the rate oftwice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board.

New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. vs. NYK-Filjapan Shipping Corp., etal., G.R. Nos. 171468 & 174241, August 24, 2011


Sec. 242 - Period for payment of proceeds of life insurance policy

The term "ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board" means the legal rate ofinterest of 12% per annum provided in Central Bank Circular 416, pursuant toPresidential Decree 116. Section 244 of the Insurance Code also provides for anaward of attorney's fees and other expenses incurred by the assured due to theunreasonable withholding of payment of his claim.

New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. vs. NYK-Filjapan Shipping Corp., etal., G.R. Nos. 171468 & 174241, August 24, 2011



Sec. 243 - Failure of insurer to pay claim within time prescribed

Cathay Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85624, June 5, 1989


Sec. 244 - Failure to pay claim within time prescribed evidence ofunreasonable delay in payment

Cathay Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85624, June 5, 1989

Zenith Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85296, May 14, 1990

Phil. American Life Insurance Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126223,November 15, 2000


Sec. 248 - Conservatorship

Elias C. Garcia vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-67825,September 4, 1987


Sec. 251 - Receiver or liquidator

Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Willelmo C. Fortun, et al., G.R. No.L-44959, April 15, 1987



Sec. 299, par. 2 - Insurance agents and brokers

Mapalad Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39419, April 12, 1982


Sec. 306, par. 2 - Authority of agent or broker to receive premium

Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Gregoria Cruz Arnaldo, G.R. No. L-67835, October 12,1987



Sec. 361 - Rebate from premium specified in policy is prohibited

Nora Lumibao vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 64677, September 13, 1990


Sec. 374 - Insurance required for operation of motor vehicle in publichighways

"Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance (third party liability, or TPL) isprimarily intended to provide compensation for the death or bodily injuries sufferedby innocent third parties or passengers as a result of a negligent operation and use of


motor vehicles. The victims and/or their defendants [dependents] are assured ofimmediate financial assistance, regardless of the financial capacity of motor vehicleowners.

xxx xxx xxx

The injured for whom the contract of insurance is intended can sue directly theinsurer. The general purpose of statutes enabling an injured person to proceed directlyagainst the insurer is to protect injured persons against the insolvency of the insuredwho causes such injury, and to give such injured person a certain beneficial interest inthe proceeds of the policy, and statutes are to be liberally construed so that theirintended purpose may be accomplished. It has even been held that such a provisioncreates a contractual relation which inures to the benefit of any and every person whomay be negligently injured by the named insured as if such injured person werespecifically named in the policy. (S 449 7 Am. Jur., 2d, pp. 118-119)"

Sherman Shafer vs. Regional Trial Court Olongapo City, Branch 75, G.R. No. 78848,November 14, 1988

GSIS vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101439, June 21, 1999

Figuracion Vda. De Maglana vs. Francisco Z. Consolacion, G.R. No. 60506, August 6,1992

First Quezon City Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98414, February 8,1993

First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co. vs. Harold M. Hernando, G.R. No. 51221, July31, 1991


Sec. 377 - Insurance policy required for registration of motor vehicle

Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78860, May 28, 1990

Paramount Insurance Corp. vs. Maximo M. Japzon, G.R. No. 68037, July 29, 1992


(now Section 391 (c) of RA 10607)

Sec. 378 (iii) - Claim may be made against one motor vehicle only

Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs. Constante A. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-49699, August8, 1988


Sec. 384 - Period for filing notice of claim

Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Jose C. De Guzman, G.R. No.L-50997, June 30, 1987

Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc., vs. Gregoria C. Arnaldo, G.R. No.L-48679, June 30, 1987

Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc., vs. Ramon V. Jabson, G.R. No.L-48758, June 30, 1987

Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Gregoria C. Arnaldo, G.R. No.L-48546, February 29, 1988

The requirement that any claim or action for recovery of damage under aninsurance policy must be brought within one year from the date of the accident wasintended to ensure that suits be brought by the insured while evidence as to the originand cause of destruction have not yet disappeared.

Country Bankers Insurance Corp. vs. Travelers Insurance and Surety Corp., G.R. No.82509, August 16, 1989

Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82036, May 22,1997


Sec. 414, par. 2 - Administrative and adjudicatory powers of Insurance


Commissioner

Midland Insurance Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71905,August 13, 1986

Almendras Mining Corp. vs. Office of the Insurance Comm., G.R. No. L-72878, April 15,1988

Philippine American Life Insurance Company vs. Armando Ansaldo, G.R. No. 76452,July 26, 1994

(now Section 439, par. 6 of RA 10607)

Sec. 416, par. 7 - Ruling or order of the Insurance Commission; appealable

Summit Guaranty & Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-51539,December 14, 1981

Almendras Mining Corp. vs. Office of the Insurance Comm., G.R. No. L-72878, April 15,1988


Endnotes

1 (Popup - Popup)

* Note from the Publisher: The term "designed" should read as "designated".

commercial law - insurance (lex 2014)

Documents

insurance codesec

insurance contract existswhere

filipino merchants insurance

court of appeals

risk of loss

principal purpose

assumption of risk

contract of insurancesection