c
 



 



   

Name
Year
Source of Philippine Insurance Law
Ang Giok Chip
1931
v.
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins.

Republic
v.
Del Monte Motors Inc.

2006

Facts

Held

Doctrine

Ang Giok Chip owns a warehouse.

Contents were insured with 3 ICs.
Warehouse was destroyed by fire.
Petitioner filed an action to recover.
Warranty: (rider) no hazardous material
be stored in the building.
RTC held Del Monte liable for the balance
of
Vilfrans
service
contracts.
Counterbond was posted by Vilfran and
issued by Cisco. Cisco allege that it did
not issue a bond, thus, it is not valid and
enforceable.
Issue: WON security deposit or
garnishment may be levied or garnished
in favor of only one insured.

Express warranty must:

1.? Contained in policy itself
2.? Another instrument, signed, and
referred to in the policy
-? No authority from courts exactly
like this case
A. 203 of Insurance Code
No judgment creditor or other claimant
shall have the right to levy any of the
securities of the insurer held on deposit
pursuant to the requirement of the
Commissioner
Law states that security deposit shall be:
1. Answerable for all obligation, 2. At all
time free from liens and 3. Exempt from
levy by claimant.

Phil. Law was taken verbatim from

law of California. Thus, the court
should follow in fundamental
points, at least, the construction
placed by California courts on a
California Law.
Insurance Code is patterned after
that of California. Court may rely
on jurisprudence from California.
Insurance act 1915 (copied
almost verbatim from California
Insurance Act)
1974 I.Code incorporate most of
the provisions from the I. Act.
1978 I.Code rendered obsolete
some fo the provisions but
substantial portion still from
I.Act.

No specific amount to be paid for death

by drowning.

Where 2 interpretations, equally

fair, of languages used in an
insurance policy may be made that
which
allows
the
greater
indemnity shall prevail.

0here Contract is ambiguous, doubtful or silent

Del Rosario
1963 Insurer issued personal accident on life
v.
of petitioners son. Part of the policy
Equitable Ins. & Casualty Co.
provides that drowning (except as
consequence of shipwreck/disablement
in which insured is a passenger) is not
covered. However a rider contained that
exemption clause is waived.
Taurus Taxi
1968 Driver of petitioner was involved in an
v.
accident.
A
commercial
vehicle
Capital Ins. & Surety Co.
comprehensive policy was issued in
favor of petitioner.
Policy: should not be entitled to
indemnity under any other policy.
WCA: employee suffering injury is
compensated
Villacorta
v.
Insurance Commission

1980

Comprehensive motor car insurance

Theft clause
Car was taken from custody of Sunday
Machine Works by employees of the car
shop.

Insured has little participation in the

contract, in drafting terms and
conditions.
Social security act and workmens
compensation may be recovered
simultaneously.

Court should regard with extreme

jealousy limitations of liability in
insurance policies and construe
them in such a way as to preclude
the insurer from non-compliance
with his obligation.

Main purpose of authorized driver

clause is that person other than the
insured owner authorized must be duly
licensed.

Contract of adhesion calls for

greater strictness and vigilance on
part of the court of justice with a
view of protecting the weaker
party from abuse or prevent their
becoming traps of the unwary.

c
 


 



   

Assoc. of Baptists for World
Evangelism
v.
Fieldmans Ins. Co. Inc.

1983

American Home Assurace Co.

v.
Tantuco Enterprises

2001

Zenith Ins. Co.

v.
CA

1990

0here terms are clear

Misamis Lumber Corp.
v.
Capital Dev. & Surety Co.

1966

Union Mfg. Co. Inc.

v.
Phil. Guaranty Co.

1972

Ty
v.
First National Surety &
Assurance Co.

1961

Ang
v.
Fulton Fire Insurance

1961

Perla Compania de Seguros

v.
CA

1990

Chevrolet carry all

Comprehensive car policy
-? Displayed for sale
-? Taken for a joy ride and figured in
an accident by bumping into an
electric post
Coconut oil milling/refining
Fire insurance taken on new and old mill
Fire broke out and consumed the new.
DOUBT: boundaries described on new
policy refer to the old mill
Car figured in an accident.
There was deduction of deductible
franchise for 20% depreciation which
was NOT WRITTEN in the policy.

No need for prior conviction.

When taken without consent or
knowledge of owner = nature of theft

Building that was intended was the new

mill. Absurd that insured will protect
the old which was already covered and
left uncovered the new.

Greater liberality to give effect to

the insurance contract.

No basis for deduction

No mention = resolved in favor of

the insured

Ford Falcon motor car

Limits of liability = authorized repair (150)
Car hit hollow block and was broken. It was towed
and repaired by another for 302.
Other insurance clause.
Loan from Republic Bank. It requires a mortgage and
an insurance. It was insured for 500,000 and renewed
by the Bank.
Fire occurred.
Insured himself with 18 insurance companies for
personal accident policies.
Fire broke in factory and he insured his hand.
Loss: either hand: 650
Loss = amputation through bones.
Dried goods in building occupied by (P). store was
destroyed by fire.
Policy: did not commence action in 12mos = forfeited
Apr. 18 1956 = denied/rejected
May 5, 1958 = commence action
Mazda bus
Bus figured in an accident. Passenger sued bus owner
for damages. Damages were awarded by TC to
passenger; hence owner filed complaint against
Insurance company praying that latter be ordered to
pay the damages awarded to passenger. Owner also
paid three other passengers P4,000 each without the
written consent of Insurance Company.

Limit = 150 can be recovered.

Recourse to legal hermeneutics

is not called for. Policy is clear
and specific and leaves no room
for interpretation.

There was a violation.

CANNOT RECOVER

CANNOT RECOVER
Express, clear and specific
that only amputation can be
recovered.
CANNOT RECOVER
No provision that action must
be filed in court.
Filing action against the agent
did not toll the period.
NOT LIABLE
made without written notice
to it, the same being
specifically required under
the contract.

Agreement is law between the

contracting parties.

The terms of the contract

constitute the measure of the
insurers
liability
and
compliance therewith is a
condition precedent to the
insureds right of recovery from
insurer.

c
 


 



   

odes of delivery of policy
Lucero Vda. De Sindayen
v.
Insular Life Co.

Insurer
White Gold Marine
v.
Pioneer Ins.

1935

Arturo took out a life insurance policy on his life. He made application
(with payment for first premium) through an agent and it was agreed
with the agent that the policy, when and if issued, should be delivered to
his aunt with whom Arturo left a certain sum to complete the payment of
first annual premium.
December 1- Company accepted application and mailed the policy to
agent for delivery to insured.
January 15- Arturo found out that he was suffering from acute nephritis
and uremia.
January 11- Company mailed policy.
January 16- Policy recived by agent.
January 18- Agent delivered policy to Aunt upon payment of balance of
first year premium Agent asked Aunt if nephew was in good health
and she replied she believed so because she had no information
that he was sick and agent thereupon delivered policy to Aunt.
January 19- Arturo died.

2005

White Gold insured its vessel from

Steamship mutual underwriting assoc. It
was issued a certificate of entry and
acceptance and receipts. Insured failed to
fully pay its accounts. Insurer refused to
renew the coverage. Insurer filed case for
collection of amt of money.

Are insurance agents parties to or liable under insurance contract?

Salonga
1951 US insurer entered insurance agreement
v.
with Gamboa to insure one case or rayon
Warner, Barnes, Co.
yardage which Gamboa shipped from US
to Manila. There was a shortage in the
shipment, hence Gamboa filed claim for
damages with Philippine agent of US
insurer.
Smith Bell
v.
CA

1997

Importer insured shipment of goods with

US insurer. The policy had note that
Claim, if any, payable in US currency at
Manila, and with Smith, Bell & Co,
stamped as Claim Agent. Some of the
shipment were in bad condition, hence a
claim was made against Smith, Bell & Co.

BINDING

The delivery of the policy to

the insured by an agent of
company who is authorized
to make delivery or
withhold delivery (with
DISCRETION) is the final
act which binds the insurer
and the insured, in the
absence of fraud or other
legal ground for rescission.
The fact that the agent was
negligent does not operate
against the insured.

MUST SECURE A LICENSE

Mutual insurance agency cooperative
enterprise where members are both the
insurer and the insured.

TEST: nature of promise, act

required to be performed and the
exact nature of the agreement in
the light of the occurrence,
contingency or circumstances
under which the performance is a
requisite and NOT by what it is
called.

NO LIABILITY
it is not a party to the contract and has
not taken part, directly or indirectly, in
the contract. The actions should have
been brought against the principal.

Contract of insurance entered to

by principal is not binding upon
agent.

NOT LIABLE
A resident agent as representative of the
foreign insurance company is tasked
only to receive legal process on behalf of
principal and not to answer personally
for any insurance claims.

Contracts are binding only upon

the parties, assigns and heirs who
execute them.
Solidary
liability
must
be
expressed not implied.

c
 


 



   

Pandiman Phils.
V.
Marine Manning Corp.

Insured
Fil. Cia. De Seguros
v.
Christern, Huenefeld & Co

2005

1951

Deceased was hired by foreign company,

through its local manning agent, as chief
cook on board a shipping vessel. The
vessel and the crew were insured with a
PRTOTECTION AND INDEMNITY CLUB,
of which owner of vessel is member.
Deceased suffered heart attack and died.
Wife of deceased filed claim with the
local insurance agent (PPI) of P&I Club.
PPI claims it is not an insurance agent
but a mere local correspondent.

NOT LIABLE
SC held PPI to be mere local
correspondent as nothing in the record
shows that it took part in negotiations.
Even if agent, under the principle of
relativity of contracts.

Parties entered into a fire policy covering PUBLIC ENEMY!

TEST: character or citizenship of
merchandise of respondent. During the Insurance ceased to be valid and controlling stockholder
Japanese occupation, the building and enforceable. Elementary rules of justice
goods of respondent were burned. provide, however, that the premiums
Insurer refused to pay the proceeds as paid be returned.
the respondent was controlled by
German subjects (majority stockholders).
US declared war against Germany, which
is a Japanese ally.
Insurable interest = under legal obligation to him
Philamcare Health Systems
2002 The deceased husband of Trinos, applied for a health care coverage with Wife is claiming as creditor of
v.
petitioner. Ernani suffered a heart attack and was confined at the Manila Medical husband because she paid for the
CA
Center for one month. While her husband was in the hospital, Trinos tried to hospital expenses.
claim benefits under the Health Care Agreement. Petitioner denied the claim on
the basis of concealment. Respondent was unable to collect so she paid the
hospitalization expenses. Sometime after the discharge in the hospital, her
husband died.
Insurable interest of mortgagee and mortgagor
Palileo
1955 Palileo took out loan and mortgaged the The proceeds of the When a mortgagee independent of the mortgagor
v.
property. Cosio took out insurance on the insurance should be , insures mortgaged property in his own name
Cosio
property.
delivered to Cosio but and for his own interest, he is entitled to the
The building was destroyed by fire.
her claim against Palileo insurance proceeds in case of loss but in such
Palileo wanted the insurance proceeds to shall be considered as case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against
be credited to pay for her obligation.
assigned
to
the the mortgagor but it passes by subrogation to the
insurance company who insurer, to the extent of the insurance money
is deemed subrogated to paid.
the rights of Cosio to the
extent of the money paid
as indemnity.

c
 


 



   

Geagonia
v.
CA

1995

Normans mart
Owner took out insurance with condition
that he shall give notice to the company
any insurance effected or may
subsequently be effected, otherwise it
will be forfeited.

Insurable interest = under legal obligation to him

Eguaras
1916 Another person was substituted during
v.
medical examination and in signing the
Great Eastern Life Assurance
documents.
Corp.
Argente
1928 Insured died of cerebral apoplexy. When
v.
asked:
West Coast Life
Alcohol: Beer only. (when in fact he was
an alcoholic, manic depressive psyhosos
and psycho-neurosis)
-? Not treated within last 5 years
-? Not
consulted
physican
re
brain/nervous system

NO DOUBLE INSURANCE

VOID

VOID

Mortgagor and mortgagee have each an

independent insurable interest and make take out
separate policy covering his interest

A contract of insurance is fraudulent when the consent of the

insurance company was obtained by means of deceitful, insidious
machinations or false statements, even though such do not
constitute estafa or any other criminal subject to the penal law
The basis of the rule vitiating the contract in case of concealment
is that it misleads or deceives the insurer into accepting the risk,
or accepting it at the rate of premium agreed upon. The insurer,
relying upon the belief that the assured will disclose every
material within his actual or presumed knowledge, is misled into a
belief that the circumstance withheld does not exist, and he is
thereby induced to estimate the risk upon a false basis that it does
not exist.

Musngi
v.
West Coast Life

1935

Never been treated

Truth: he was treated on various dates
for several diseases.

VOID

The determination of the point whether there has or has not been
a material concealment must rest largely in all cases upon the
form of questions propounded and the exact terms of the contract.

Qua Chee Gan

v.
Law Union & Rocks

1955

Bodega as storage of copra/hemp

Warrant: fire hydrant/150ft
-? Theres only 2
No hazardous materials: oil
-? Theres gasoline

VALID

Yu Pang
v.
CA

1959

Insured answered NO when asked if he

had specific diseases.
He died of infiltrating medullary
carcinoma.

VOID

Fieldmens Ins.
V.
Vda. De Songco

1968

Insured was man of scant education. He

was made to believe that he can secure
common carriage insurance although his
jeep is only for private use.

VALID

It is usually held that where the insurer, at the time of the issuance
of a policy of insurance, has knowledge of existing facts which, if
insisted on, would invalidate the contract from its very inception,
such knowledge constitutes a waiver of conditions in the contract
inconsistent with the facts, and the insurer is stopped thereafter
from asserting the breach of such conditions.
In an action on a life insurance policy where the evidence
conclusively shows that the answers to questions concerning
diseases were untrue, the truth or falsity of the answers become
the determining factor. If the policy was procured by fraudulent
representations, the contract of insurance apparently set forth
therein was never legally existent. It can fairly be assumed that
had the true facts been disclosed by the assured, the insurance
would never have been granted.
Where inequitable conduct is shown by an insurance firm, it is
"estopped from enforcing forfeitures in its favor, in order to
forestall fraud or imposition on the insured.

c
 


 



   

Great Pacific Life
v.
CA

1979

Binding deposit receipt.

Child was mongoloid. insist on taking
out insurance on life of such child.

VOID

Ng Gan Zee
v.
Asian Crusader Life

1983

Insured had tumor. When asked if he had

cancer, he said that he only had
operation for peptic ulcer.

VALID

Canilang
v.
CA

1993

concealment of sinustachycardia or
abnormally fast beating of the heart, died
of heart failure

VOID

Non-medical insurance no med exam,

all the more that it is necessary to
disclose the necessary information!

Sunlife Assurance
v.
CA
Depresentation
Tan Chay
v.
West Coast Life

Tan
v.
CA

1995

concealment
of
past
urinalysis,
senograph, hematology, 2 weeks later
died in a plane crash

1927

Tan allegedly applied for an insurance policy in

collusion with the agent and doctor of the
insurance company. It was falsely represented
that Tan was a single and a merchant and that
the petitioner was his nephew (made the
beneficiary) when in fact he was married, a
mere employee and the petitioner was not his
nephew. The doctor made it appear that he had
not used any drugs when in fact he was a drug
addict. He later died of pulmonary tuberculosis
Tan applied for a life insurance policy of P80
000. He died of hepatoma. In letter, insurer
denied the claim and rescinded the policy by
reason of alleged misrepresentation and
concealment of material facts made by the
deceased. Petitioners contend that the insurer
no longer had the right to rescind the contract of
insurance as rescission must allegedly be don
during the lifetime of the insured within 2 years
and prior to the commencement of action.

1989

VOID

Concealment exists where the assured had knowledge of a fact

material to the risk, and honesty, good faith, and fair dealing
requires that he should communicate it to the assured, but he
designedly and intentionally withholds the same.
Where, upon the face of the application, a question appears to be
not answered at all or to be imperfectly answered, and the
insurers issue a policy without any further inquiry, they waive the
imperfection of the answer and render the omission to answer
more fully immaterial.
Materiality of the information does not depend upon the state of
mind. Neither does materiality depend upon the actual or physical
events, which ensue. Materiality relates rather to the "probable
and reasonable influence of the facts" upon the party to whom the
communication should have been made, in assessing the risk
involved in making or omitting to make further inquiries and in
accepting the application for insurance; that "probable and
reasonable influence of the facts" concealed must, of course, be
determined objectively, by the judge ultimately.
The waiver of a non-medical exam in a non-medical insurance
contract renders even more material the information required of
the applicant concerning previous condition of health and
diseases suffered.
They never entered into a contract of insurance. Fraud or deceit
Thus, no contract to rescind and Sec. 47 does not is not barred by
apply. Minds of the party never met and never the
agreed upon the terms and conditions of the incontestable
contract. Rescission presupposes the existence of a clause
contract to rescind. Also, a defense to an action to
recover insurance that the policy was obtained
through false representation, fraud and deceit is not
in the nature of an action to rescind and hence is not
barred by Sec. 47 of the Insurance Act.
The incontestability clause precludes the insurer from raising the
defenses of false representations or concealment of material facts
insofar as health and previous diseases are concerned if the insurance
has been in force for at least 2 years during the insureds lifetime. The
phrase during the insureds lifetime found in Sec. 48 simply means
that the policy is no longer considered in force after the insurance has
died. The key phrase is for a period of 2 years. The policy was thus in
force for a period of only 1 year and 5 mos. Considering that insured
died before 2-year period lapsed, respondent company is not, therefore
barred from proving that the policy is void.

c
 


 



   

Storage of prohibited articles
Bachrach
1910
v.
British American Assurance

Other insurance policy

Pioneer Ins. & Surety Corp
v.
Yap

1974

Furniture store was insured.

Storage of gasoline was prohibited (can
only store up to 10 gallons)
Paint and varnish shop was also
maintained.

VALID

The paint and varnish shop is incidental to the business.

No express prohibition. If insurer intended to prohibit such, it
shouldve plainly expressed it in the policy.

owned a store in a 2 storey building

where she sold shopping bags and
footwear.
In the policy, it is state that benefits will
be forfeited if there are other insurance.

VOID

Procurement of additional insurance without consent of the

insurer renders the policy void.
No waiver because such should be express.