midterms case summary
Post on 21-Jul-2016
239 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
SEC 2 3RD Party Liability insuranceTRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY V CA
Old lady was hit buy "Ladylove taxi cab". She sued insurer,
operator & driver. SC ruled that insurer is not liable since
the liability contract is between the insurer and the taxi
operator
SEC 2 Contract of AdhesionNew World International V NYK
New World is the consignee of items shipped via NYK
which were insured under an "all risk" marine
insurance policy by Seaboard. The items were
damaged but Seaboard refused to indemnify,
requiring an "itemized list" from New World which
was not included in the contract.
SEC 2 Meaning of "doing insurance biz"White Gold Marine Services V Pioneer Insurance
Pioneer (agent) & Steamship (insurere) refused to
renew White Gold. In retaliation, whitegold assailed
the licenses of the two, since they are engaged in the
insurance business. Pioneer & Steamship contends
they are not, claiming that thet are PCI (mutual
insurance)
GULF RESORTS V PHIL GULF INSURANCEContract of AdhesionSEC 2
Resort owner in La Union, insurance policy &
premiums paid covered only 2 swimming pools. Gulf
resorts claim for the other pools that were damaged.
Avers liberal approach since it is a contract of
adhesion
Republic V Del Monte
Philippine Healthcare Providers V CIR
Issues: WON a health care agreement in the nature of an
insurance contract and therefore subject to the documentary
stamp tax (DST) imposed under Section 185 of Republic
Act 8424 (Tax Code of 1997)
Philamcare V CA WON health care providers are insurance contracts?
Contract of AdhesionETERNAL V PHILAM LIFE
An examination of the provision of the POLICY under effective date of benefit, would show ambiguity between its two sentences. The
first sentence appears to state that the insurance coverage of the clients of Eternal already became effective upon contracting a loan with
Eternal while the second sentence appears to require Philamlife to approve the insurance contract before the same can become effective.It
must be remembered that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and
strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the latter’s interest. On the other hand, the seemingly conflicting provisions must be
harmonized to mean that upon a party’s purchase of a memorial lot on installment from Eternal, an insurance contract covering the lot
purchaser is created and the same is effective, valid, and binding until terminated by Philamlife by disapproving the insurance application.
The second sentence of the Creditor Group Life Policy on the Effective Date of Benefit is in the nature of a resolutory condition which
would lead to the cessation of the insurance contract. Moreover, the mere inaction of the insurer on the insurance application must not
work to prejudice the insured; it cannot be interpreted as a termination of the insurance contract. The termination of the insurance contract
by the insurer must be explicit and unambiguous.
SEC 7 Control TestFILIPINAS DE SEGUROS V CHRISTERN
that "anyone except a public enemy may be insured".
However, elementary rule of justice (in the absence of
specific provisions in the Insurance Law) require that the
premium paid by the respondent for the period covered by
its policy from December 11, 1941, should be returned by
the petitioner.
SEC 7 Abrogation - warCONSTANTINO V ASIA LIFE
Philippine law on insurance and the Civil Code) are mostly
based from the Civil Code of California, An intention to
supplement our laws with the prevailing principles of the
US arises. Thus, Prof. Vance of Yaled declares that the
United States Rule must be followed, where “the contract is
not merely suspended but is abrogated by reason of non-
payment of premiums since the time of payments is peculiar
to the essence of the contract. In said case it was hold that
promptness of payment is essential in the business of life
insurance since all calculations of the company is based on
the hypothesis of prompt payments.
SEC 8 Mortatge redemption insurance clause, the insured is still a party in interestGREPALIFE V CA
SEC 8 GEAGONIA V CA
Different interests of the mortgagor & mortgage in an
insurance contract. Cebu Tesing Textile, as his creditor,
had insurable interest on the stocks.
SEC 8 SubrogationPALILEO V COSIO that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”
Grepalife is liable to pay the insurance claim. Medarda is a proper party in interest (note that it was Wilfredo who has
been paying the premium, as the insured, he is the real party in interest and this status was transferred to his widow).
The group life insurance or “mortgage redemption insurance” provides that DBP as the mortgagee is merely an assignee
of Wilfredo; and that in the event of Wilfredo’s death before his indebtedness to DBP is paid, proceeds from the insurance
shall first be applied to the sum of the balance insured. But this does not cease Wilfredo to be a party to the insurance
contract.
Wherethecontract is for indemnity against actual loss orpayment, then third p
ersonscannot proceed against the insurer, the contract being
solely to reimbursetheinsured for liability actually discharged by him thru
payment to third persons, said third persons ‘recourse being thus limited to
the insured alone
An insurance premium is the consideration paid an insurer for undertaking to
indemnify the insured against a specified peril.[27] In fire, casualty, and
marine insurance, the premium payable becomes a debt as soon as the risk
attaches.[28] In the subject policy, no premium payments were made with
regard to earthquake shock coverage, except on the two swimming pools.
There is no mention of any premium payable for the other resort properties
with regard to earthquake shock. This is consistent with the history of
petitioner’s previous insurance policies from AHAC-AIU.
No ambiguity in the terms, must be applied as is.
Seaboard cannot pretend that the above documents are inadequate
since they were precisely the documents listed in its insurance
policy. Being a contract of adhesion, an insurance policy is
construed strongly against the insurer who prepared it. The Court
cannot read a requirement in the policy that was not there.
, a mutual insurance company is a cooperative enterprise where the
members are both the insurer and insured. In it, the members all
contribute, by a system of premiums or assessments, to the
creation of a fund from which all losses and liabilities are paid, and
where the profits are divided among themselves, in proportion to
their interest. Additionally, mutual insurance associations, or clubs,
provide three types of coverage, namely, protection and indemnity,
war risks, and defense costs.
Steamship & Pioneer is doing an insurance business, permits must
be secured.
the business of insurance is imbued with public interest. It is
subject to regulation by the State, with respect not only to the
relations between the insurer and the insured, but also to the
internal affairs of insurance companies.[8] As this case is
undeniably endowed with public interest and involves a matter of
public policy, this Court shall not shirk from its duty to educate the
bench and the bar by formulating guiding and controlling principles,
precepts, doctrines and rules.Petitioner's health care agreement is primarily a contract of indemnity. DST
under Section 185 of the 1997 Tax Code is imposed on the privilege of
making or renewing any policy of insurance (except life, marine, inland and
fire insurance), bond or obligation in the nature of indemnity for loss,
damage, or liability.
Herein, the insurable interest of Trinos' husband
in obtaining the health care agreement was his own health. The
health care agreement was in the nature of
non-life insurance, which is primarily a contract of indemnity. Once
the member incurs hospital, medical or
any other expense arising from sickness, injury or other stipulated
contingent, the health care provider must
pay for the same to the extent agreed upon under the contract.
An examination of the provision of the POLICY under effective date of benefit, would show ambiguity between its two sentences. The
first sentence appears to state that the insurance coverage of the clients of Eternal already became effective upon contracting a loan with
Eternal while the second sentence appears to require Philamlife to approve the insurance contract before the same can become effective.It
must be remembered that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and
strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the latter’s interest. On the other hand, the seemingly conflicting provisions must be
harmonized to mean that upon a party’s purchase of a memorial lot on installment from Eternal, an insurance contract covering the lot
purchaser is created and the same is effective, valid, and binding until terminated by Philamlife by disapproving the insurance application.
The second sentence of the Creditor Group Life Policy on the Effective Date of Benefit is in the nature of a resolutory condition which
would lead to the cessation of the insurance contract. Moreover, the mere inaction of the insurer on the insurance application must not
work to prejudice the insured; it cannot be interpreted as a termination of the insurance contract. The termination of the insurance contract
by the insurer must be explicit and unambiguous.
A corporation was subject to enemy legislation when it was controlled by
enemies, namely managed under the influence of individuals or corporations
themselves considered as enemies
that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”
Grepalife is liable to pay the insurance claim. Medarda is a proper party in interest (note that it was Wilfredo who has
been paying the premium, as the insured, he is the real party in interest and this status was transferred to his widow).
The group life insurance or “mortgage redemption insurance” provides that DBP as the mortgagee is merely an assignee
of Wilfredo; and that in the event of Wilfredo’s death before his indebtedness to DBP is paid, proceeds from the insurance
shall first be applied to the sum of the balance insured. But this does not cease Wilfredo to be a party to the insurance
contract.
that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”
that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”
that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”
that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”
SEC 11 New:
Nothwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the insured does not change the beneficiary during his lifetime, the designation shal be deemed irrevocable
SEC 12 Order of Forfeiture: Order of Forfeiture:
relative of the insured unless disqualified 1. other beneficiaries unless disqualified
2. in accordance with policy
3. if policy is silent, to the estate of insured
Nothwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the insured does not change the beneficiary during his lifetime, the designation shal be deemed irrevocable
Nothwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the insured does not change the beneficiary during his lifetime, the designation shal be deemed irrevocable
top related