Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Finman General ASSURANCE

    Încărcat de

    valeryanns
    111 vizualizări1 pagină
    1. Carlie Surposa was insured under a personal accident insurance policy issued by Finman General Assurance Corporation. He died from stab wounds inflicted by three unidentified men without provocation while waiting for a ride with his cousin after attending a festival. 2. Finman denied the claim of Surposa's beneficiaries, arguing that murder and assault were not covered by the policy. However, the court ruled that Surposa's death was accidental and the insurer was liable to pay the insurance proceeds. 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Surposa did not voluntarily expose himself to danger and his death was accidental, not intentional, so it was covered by the policy even though the direct cause was

    Descriere originală:

    Finman General ASSURANCE

    Drepturi de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formate disponibile

    DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    1. Carlie Surposa was insured under a personal accident insurance policy issued by Finman General Assurance Corporation. He died from stab wounds inflicted by three unidentified men without provocation while waiting for a ride with his cousin after attending a festival. 2. Finman denied the claim of Surposa's beneficiaries, arguing that murder and assault were not covered by the policy. However, the court ruled that Surposa's death was accidental and the insurer was liable to pay the insurance proceeds. 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Surposa did not voluntarily expose himself to danger and his death was accidental, not intentional, so it was covered by the policy even though the direct cause was

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    111 vizualizări1 pagină

    Finman General ASSURANCE

    Încărcat de

    valeryanns
    1. Carlie Surposa was insured under a personal accident insurance policy issued by Finman General Assurance Corporation. He died from stab wounds inflicted by three unidentified men without provocation while waiting for a ride with his cousin after attending a festival. 2. Finman denied the claim of Surposa's beneficiaries, arguing that murder and assault were not covered by the policy. However, the court ruled that Surposa's death was accidental and the insurer was liable to pay the insurance proceeds. 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Surposa did not voluntarily expose himself to danger and his death was accidental, not intentional, so it was covered by the policy even though the direct cause was

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

    THE HONORA LE COURT OF APPEALS !"# $ULIA SURPOSA, respondents. FACTS: Carlie Surposa was insured with petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation under Finman General Teachers Protection Plan Master Policy No. !!" and #ndividual Policy No. !$% & with his parents, , and 'rothers as 'ene(iciaries. )hile said insurance policy was in (ull (orce and e((ect, the insured, Carlie Surposa, died as a result o( a sta' wound in(licted 'y one o( the three *+, unidenti(ied men without provocation and warnin- on the part o( the (ormer as he and his cousin, )inston Surposa, were waitin- (or a ride on their way home alon- .i/al01ocsin Streets, 2acolod City a(ter attendin- the cele'ration o( the 3Mas4arra Annual Festival.3 Therea(ter, private respondent and the other 'ene(iciaries o( said insurance policy (iled a written notice o( claim with the petitioner insurance company which denied said claim contendin- that murder and assault are not within the scope o( the covera-e o( the insurance policy. The #nsurance Commission held the insurer lia'le to pay complainant the sum o( P5",!!!.!! representin- the proceeds o( the policy with interest The appellate court a((irmed said decision. #SS67: )hether or not the cause o( death o( the insured was not accidental 'ut was committed with deli'erate intent which cannot 'e indemni(ied. .61#NG: No. #n the case at 'ar, it cannot 'e pretended that Carlie Surposa died in the course o( an assault or murder as a result o( his voluntary act considerin- the very nature o( these crimes. #n the (irst place, the insured and his companion were on their way home (rom attendin- a (estival. They were con(ronted 'y unidenti(ied persons. The record is 'arren o( any circumstance showin- how the sta' wound was in(licted. Nor can it 'e pretended that the male(actor aimed at the insured precisely 'ecause the 4iller wanted to ta4e his li(e. #n any event, while the act may not e8empt the un4nown perpetrator (rom criminal lia'ility, the (act remains that the happeninwas a pure accident on the part o( the victim. The insured died (rom an event that too4 place without his (oresi-ht or e8pectation, an event that proceeded (rom an unusual e((ect o( a 4nown cause and, there(ore, not e8pected. Neither can it 'e said that where was a capricious desire on the part o( the accused to e8pose his li(e to dan-er considerin- that he was 9ust -oin- home a(ter attendin- a (estival. Furthermore, the personal accident insurance policy involved herein speci(ically enumerated only ten *5!, circumstances wherein no lia'ility attaches to petitioner insurance company (or any in9ury, disa'ility or loss su((ered 'y the insured as a result o( any o( the stimulated causes. The principle o( 3 expresso unius exclusio alterius3 : the mention o( one thin- implies the e8clusion o( another thin- : is there(ore applica'le in the instant case since murder and assault, not havin- 'een e8pressly included in the enumeration o( the circumstances that would ne-ate lia'ility in said insurance policy cannot 'e considered 'y implication to dischar-e the petitioner insurance company (rom lia'ility (or, any in9ury, disa'ility or loss su((ered 'y the insured.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și