Insurance Digests 2

8/11/2019 Insurance Digests 2

1/7

Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. CA [G.R. No. L-36413, 26 Sepe!"er 1#$$%Post under case digests, Commercial Law at Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic ind

&acs'alayan !nsurance Co" !nc" #$L$%$&' issued a Pri(ate Car Comprehensi(e Policy co(ering a )illys *eep" The insurance co(erage was +orown damage not to e-ceed P.00"00 and third/party liability in the amount o+ P20,000"00"

uring the e++ecti(ity o+ the insurance policy, , the insured *eep, while being dri(en by one uan P" Campollo an employee o+ the respondent SanLeon ice ill, !nc", #S$& L34&' collided with a passenger bus belonging to the respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co", !nc"

#P$&T$&C4' at the national highway in 5arrio San Pedro, osales, Pangasinan, causing damage to the insured (ehicle and in*uries to thedri(er, uan P" Campollo, and the respondent artin C" 6alle*os, who was riding in the ill/+ated *eep"

artin C" 6alle*os +iled an action +or damages against Sio Choy, alayan !nsurance Co", !nc" and the P$&T$&C4 be+ore the Court o+ First!nstance o+ Pangasinan" The trial court rendered *udgment holding Sio Choy, S$& L34&, and $L$%$& *ointly and se(erally liable" 7owe(er,$L$%$&8s liability will only be up to P20,000"

4n appeal, C$ a++irmed the decision o+ the trial court" 7owe(er, it ruled that S$& L34& has no obligation to indemni+y or reimburse the petitionerinsurance company +or whate(er amount it has been ordered to pay on its policy, since the San Leon ice ill, !nc" is not a pri(y to the contracto+ insurance between Sio Choy and the insurance company"

$L$%$& appealed to the SC by way o+ re(iew on certiorari"

Issues'#1' )hether or not $L$%$& is solidarily liable to 6alle*os, along with Sio Choy and S$& L34&

#2' )hether or not $L$%$& is entitled to be reimbursed by S$& L34& +or whate(er amount petitioner has been ad*udged to pay respondent6alle*os on its insurance policy"

(el)'#1' 4nly Sio Choy and S$& L34& are solidarily liable to 6alle*os +or the award o+ damages" Sio Choy is liable as owner o+ the *eep pursuant to$rticle 219:, while S$& L34& is liable as the employer o+ the dri(er o+ the *eep at the time o+ the accident pursuant to $rt 2190"

$L$%$&8s liability, howe(er, arose only out o+ the insurance policy with Sio Choy" Petitioner as insurer o+ Sio Choy, is liable to respondent6alle*os, but it cannot, as incorrectly held by the trial court, be made solidarily liable with the two principal tort+easors namely respondents SioChoy and S$& L34&"

#2' $L$%$& is entitled to be reimbursed" ;pon payment o+ the loss, the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right o+ actionwhich the insured may ha(e against the third person whose negligence or wrong+ul act caused the loss" )hen the insurance company pays +orthe loss, such payment operates as an e


2/7

(/L0'%3S

RLING'The Supreme Court held that i+ a property is insured and the owner recei(es the indemnity +rom theinsurer, it is pro(ided in $rticle 220D o+ the&ew Ci(il CodeE that the insurer is deemed subrogated tothe rights o+ the insured against the wrongdoer and i+ the amount paid by the insurerdoes not +ullyco(er the loss, then the aggrie(ed party is the one entitled to reco(er the de+iciency" ;nder this legalpro(ision, the real party ininterest with regard to the portion o+ the indemnity paid is the insurer andnot the insured"7ence, petitioner is entitled to =eep the sum o+P:,?00"00 paid by San iguel Corporation under itsclear right to +ile a de+iciency claim +or damages incurred, against the wrongdoer, should the

insurancecompany not +ully pay +or the in*ury caused #$rticle 220D, &ew Ci(il Code'"7owe(er, when petitioner released San iguel Corporation+rom any liability, petitioner@s right to retainthe sum o+ P?,000"00 no longer e-isted, thereby entitling pri(ate respondent to reco(er the same"Theright o+ subrogation can only e-ist a+ter the insurer has paid the insured otherwise the insured will bedepri(ed o+ his right to +ull indemnity" !+the insurance proceeds are not su++icient to co(er the damages su++ered by the insured, then he may sue the party responsible +or the damage+or the remainder" To thee-tent o+ the amount he has already recei(ed +rom, the insurer en*oys the right o+ subrogation" Sincethe insurer can besubrogated to only such rights as the insured may ha(e, should the insured, a+terrecei(ing payment +rom the insurer, release the wrongdoer whocaused the loss, the insurer loses hisrights against the latter" 5ut in such a case, the insurer will be entitled to reco(er +rom the insuredwhate(erit has paid to the latter, unless the release was made with the consent o+ the insurer"

an Malayan Ins. Corp. v. Cour o Appeals1$4 SCRA 4C*R/S,"

&acs'

4n ecember 10, 1G9?, P$&$L$% +iled a complaint +or damages with the TC o+ a=ati against pri(ate respondents 3rlindaFabie and herdri(er" P$&$L$% a(erred the +ollowing that itinsured a itsubishi Colt Lancer car with plate &o" >/:H1 andregistered in the name o+Canlubang $utomoti(e esourcesCorporation C$&L;5$&AEB that on ay 2., 1G9?, due to thecarelessness, rec=lessness, and imprudence o+the un=nown dri(er o+ a pic=/up with plate no" PC/220, the insured car was hit andsu++ered damages in the amount o+ P:2,0?2"00B thatP$&$L$%de+rayed the cost o+ repair o+ the insured car and, there+ore, wassubrogated to the rights o+ C$&L;5$&A against the dri(er o+ thepic=/up and his employer, 3rlinda FabieB and that, despite repeateddemands, de+endants, +ailed and re+used to pay the claim o+ P$&$L$%"4nFebruary 12, 1G9., pri(ate respondents +iled a otion to ismissalleging that P$&$L$% had no cause o+ action against them"They argued thatpayment under the own damage clause o+ theinsurance policy precluded subrogation under $rticle 220D o+ theCi(il Code, since indemni+icationthereunder was made on theassumption that there was no wrongdoer or no third party at +ault"

Issue')hether or not the insurer P$&$L$% may institute anaction to reco(er the amount it had paid its assured in settlement o+ an insurance claimagainst pri(ate respondents as the partiesallegedly responsible +or the damage caused to the insured (ehicle"

(el)'!t cannot be said that the meaning gi(en by P$&$L$% andC$&L;5$&A to the phrase by accidental collision or o(erturning+ound in the +irstpaint o+ sub/paragraph #a' is untenable" $lthoughthe terms accident or accidental as used in insurance contractsha(e not ac


3/7

entered into a contract where negligence was the only +actor that could ma=e CS3) liable +or damages" oreo(er, liability o+ CS3) was limitedto only Php 1million +or damages" The 7ull Policy included an K$dditional Perils #!&C7$33' Clause co(ering loss o+ or damage to the (esselthrough the negligence o+, among others, ship repairmen")illiam brought anila City to the dry doc= o+ CS3) +or repairs" The o++icers and cabin crew stayed at the ship while it was being repaired" $+terthe (essel was trans+erred to the doc=ing


4/7

Then too, in the $dditional Perils Clause o+ the same arine !nsurance Policy, it is pro(ided that this insurance also co(ers loss o+ or damage to(essel directly caused by the negligence o+ charterers and repairers who are not assured"$s correctly pointed out by respondent Prudential, i+ CS3) were deemed a co/assured under the policy, it would nulli+y any claim o+ )illiamLines, !nc" +rom Prudential +or any loss or damage caused by the negligence o+ CS3)" Certainly, no shipowner would agree to ma=e ashiprepairer a co/assured under such insurance policyB otherwise, any claim +or loss or damage under the policy would be in(alidated":" $lthough in this *urisdiction, contracts o+ adhesion ha(e been consistently upheld as (alid per seB as binding as an ordinary contract, the Courtrecognizes instances when reliance on such contracts cannot be +a(ored especially where the +acts and circumstances warrant that sub*ectstipulations be disregarded" Thus, in ruling on the (alidity and applicability o+ the stipulation limiting the liability o+ CS3) +or negligence to P1only, the +acts and circumstances (is/a/(is the nature o+ the pro(ision sought to be en+orced should be considered, bearing in mind the principles

o+ eamboanga City" The shipment was insured with the pri(ate respondent, $merican 7ome $ssurance Corporation";n+ortunately, the (essel san= near Panay Aul+ in the 6isayas ta=ing with it the entire cargo o+ +uel oil"

H" pri(ate respondent paid Calte- the sum o+ P?,0G.,.H?".D' representing the insured (alue o+ the lost cargo" 3-ercising its right o+ subrogationunder $rticle 220D o+ the &ew Ci(il Code, the pri(ate respondent demanded o+ the petitioner the same amount it paid to Calte-"

:" ue to its +ailure to collect +rom the petitioner despite prior demand, pri(ate respondent +iled a complaint with the egional Trial Court o+a=ati City, 5ranch 1HD, +or collection o+ a sum o+ money who dismiss the case on the ground that the (essel was seaworthy to ta=e the (oyageand that the cause o+ the sin=ing was due to a +orce ma*eure"

?" The court o+ appeals re(ersed the decision o+ the trial court stating that the weather condition at the time o+ the incidents was good as reportedby the P$A/$S$ so the sin=ing was not due to a +orce ma*eure and that the (essel was improperly manned so the petitioner was liable to thepri(ate respondent"

." !n its petition to the supreme court, Petitioner elsan Transport Lines, !nc" in(o=es the pro(ision o+ Section 11H o+ the !nsurance Code o+ thePhilippines, which states that in e(ery marine insurance upon a ship or +reight, or +reightage, or upon any thin which is the sub*ect o+ marineinsurance there is an implied warranty by the shipper that the ship is seaworthy" Conse


5/7

the (essel8s seaworthiness by the pri(ate respondent as to +oreclose recourse against the petitioner +or any liability under its contractualobligation as a common carrier" The +act o+ payment grants the pri(ate respondent subrogatory right which enables it to e-ercise legal remediesthat would otherwise be a(ailable to Calte- as owner o+ the lost cargo against the petitioner common carrier"

$nd in the second issue, the SC said that the presentation in e(idence o+ the marine insurance policy is not indispensable in this case be+ore theinsurer may reco(er +rom the common carrier the insured (alue o+ the lost cargo in the e-ercise o+ its subrogatory right" The subrogationreceipt,by itsel+, is su++icient to establish not only the relationship o+ pri(ate respondent as insurer and Calte-, as the assured shipper o+ the lostcargo o+ industrial +uel oil, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim" The right o+ subrogation accrues simply upon payment by theinsurance company o+ the insurance claim"

So the petition was dismissed"

&/0/? vs. A(AC an) (ILAM INSRANC/ C*MAN+, INCG.R. No. 1::#4Au>us 1$, 2::4

&ACS'Shipper S!T7NL!&3 ;S$ deli(ered to carrier 5urlington $ir 3-press #5;L!&AT4&', an agent o+ PetitionerE Federal 3-press Corporation, ashipment o+ 10G cartons o+ (eterinary biologicals +or deli(ery to consignee S!T7NL!&3 and French 4(erseas Company in a=ati City" Theshipment was co(ered by 5urlington $irway 5ill &o" 112.H92? with the words, O3F!A3$T3 )73& &4T !& T$&S!T8 and OP3!S7$5L38stamp mar=ed on its +ace" That same day, 5urlington insured the cargoes with $merican 7ome $ssurance Company #$7$C'" The +ollowingday, 5urlington turned o(er the custody o+ said cargoes to F33 which transported the same to anila"

The shipments arri(ed in anila and was immediately stored at Cargohaus !nc"8sE warehouse" Prior to the arri(al o+ the cargoes, F33in+ormed A3TC Cargo !nternational Corporation, the customs bro=er hired by the consignee to +acilitate the release o+ its cargoes +rom the5ureau o+ Customs, o+ the impending arri(al o+ i ts client8s cargoes"

12 days a+ter the cargoes arri(ed in anila, !4&3$, a non/licensed custom8s bro=er who was assigned by A3TC, +ound out, while he wasabout to cause the release o+ the said cargoes, that the same wereE stored only in a room with 2 air conditioners running, to cool the placeinstead o+ a re+rigerator" !4&3$, upon instructions +rom A3TC, did not proceed with the withdrawal o+ the (accines and instead, samples o+the same were ta=en and brought to the 5ureau o+ $nimal !ndustry o+ the epartment o+ $griculture in the Philippines by S!T7NL!&3 +ore-amination wherein it was disco(ered that the O3L!S$ reading o+ (accinates sera are below the positi(e re+erence serum"8

$s a conse


6/7

K12"J12"1 The person entitled to deli(ery must ma=e a complaint to the carrier in writing in the case

12"1"1 o+ (isible damage to the goods, immediately a+ter disco(ery o+ the damage and at the latest within +ourteen #1:' days +rom receipt o+ thegoodsB ---

$rticle 2. o+ the )arsaw Con(ention, on the other hand, pro(ides

-- #2' !n case o+ damage, the person entitled to deli(ery must complain to the carrier +orthwith a+ter the disco(ery o+ the damage, and, at the

latest, within H days +rom the date o+ receipt in the case o+ baggage and D days +rom the date o+ receipt in the case o+ goods" --

#H' 3(ery complaint must be made in writing upon the document o+ transportation or by separate notice in writing dispatched within the timesa+oresaid"

#:' Failing complaint within the times a+oresaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, sa(e in the case o+ +raud on his part" ---

Condition Precedent

!n this *urisdiction, the +iling o+ a claim with the carrier within the time limitation there+or actually constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual o+a right o+ action against a carrier +or loss o+ or damage to the goods" The shipper or consignee must allege and pro(e the +ul+illment o+ thecondition" !+ it +ails to do so, no right o+ action against the carrier can accrue in +a(or o+ the +ormer" The a+orementioned rea8on Rece8p 8n avor o respon)ens. 7elaer =ere 7us au7or8Be) o 8le cla8!s an) "e>8n su8 a>a8ns any suc7 carr8er, vessel, person, corpora8on or >overn!en.Dn)en8a"ly, 7e cons8>nee 7a) a le>al r8>7 o rece8ve 7e >oo)s 8n 7e sa!e con)88on 8 =as )el8vere) or ranspor o pe88oner. I7a r8>7 =as v8olae), 7e cons8>nee =oul) 7ave a cause o ac8on a>a8ns 7e person respons8"le 7ereor.

CIR vs.LINC*LN (ILIIN/ LI&/ INSRANC/ C*MAN+

&ACS'

Prior to 1G9:, Lincoln Philippine Li+e !nsurance Company, !nc" #now called ardine/C$ Li+e !nsurance Company, !nc"' used to issue policiescalled Kunior 3state 5uilder Policy" $ clause therein pro(ides +or an automatic increase in the amount o+ li+e insurance co(erage uponattainment o+ a certain age by the insured without the need o+ issuing a new policy" The clause was to ta=e e++ect in the year 1G9:" ocumentarystamp ta-es due on the policy were paid by Lincoln Philippine only on the initial sum assured")hen the clause became e++ecti(e in 1G9:, the Commissioner o+ !nternal e(enue assessed an additional ta- on the increased amount o+ theco(erage o+ the said policies" Said ta- was to co(er the de+iciency documentary stamps ta- +or said year" The Court o+ $ppeals ruled that there isonly one policy and the automatic increase is not a separate policyB that said increase o+ co(erage is not co(ered by another documentary stampta-"

ISS/')hether or not there is only one policy"


7/7

(/L0'%es" Section :G, Title 6! o+ the !nsurance Code de+ines an insurance policy as the written instrument in which a contract o+ insurance is set +orth"Section ?0 o+ the same Code pro(ides that the policy, which is re

Documents

Insurance Digests 2