Tio Khe Chio vs CA, 1991 Under Sections 242. 243 and 24, the Commissioner or the Court must still make a finding that the payment of the claim has been unreasonably denied or withheld before the insured shall be entitled to collect damages and the interest provided which has been increased fro, 12% to 24%. They apply only when the Commissioner or the Court finds an unreasonable delay or refusal in the payment of the clauses. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs CA It is generally agreed that an insurer may, in good faith and honesty, entertain a difference of opinion as to its liability. According, the statutory penalty for vexatious refusal of an insurer to pay a claim should not be imposed unless the evidence and the circumstances show that such refusal was willful and without reasonable cause as the facts appear to a reasonable and prudent man. Teal Motor vs Continental Insurance (1934) The mere fact that the evidence justified the payment of the claim does not necessarily mean that the insurer, in contesting payment, acted without justification. Chuy vs Philippine American Life (1954) Where the delay in payment wsa due to the investigation insurer conducted to ascertain the truth of the information it received that the insured was not insurable at the time of his application, the delay was held justifiable. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp vs CA Where the insurer was faced by the problem of determining who was the actual beneficiary of the insurance policies involved, aggravated by the claim of various creditors who wanted to partake of the insurance proceeds, not to mention the endorsement by the insured of the policies to a bank to which he mortgaged the properties covered by the insurance, it was held hat the insurer was justified in withholding payment to the insured.

RESEARCH

Download DOCX Report

Upload
bernice-pinol
View
3
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

RESEARCH

Citation preview

Tio Khe Chio vs CA, 1991

Under Sections 242. 243 and 24, the Commissioner or the Court must still make a finding that the payment of the claim has been unreasonably denied or withheld before the insured shall be entitled to collect damages and the interest provided which has been increased fro, 12% to 24%. They apply only when the Commissioner or the Court finds an unreasonable delay or refusal in the payment of the clauses.

Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs CA

It is generally agreed that an insurer may, in good faith and honesty, entertain a difference of opinion as to its liability. According, the statutory penalty for vexatious refusal of an insurer to pay a claim should not be imposed unless the evidence and the circumstances show that such refusal was willful and without reasonable cause as the facts appear to a reasonable and prudent man.

Teal Motor vs Continental Insurance (1934)

The mere fact that the evidence justified the payment of the claim does not necessarily mean that the insurer, in contesting payment, acted without justification.

Chuy vs Philippine American Life (1954)

Where the delay in payment wsa due to the investigation insurer conducted to ascertain the truth of the information it received that the insured was not insurable at the time of his application, the delay was held justifiable.

Rizal Commercial Banking Corp vs CA Where the insurer was faced by the problem of determining who was the actual beneficiary of the insurance policies involved, aggravated by the claim of various creditors who wanted to partake of the insurance proceeds, not to mention the endorsement by the insured of the policies to a bank to which he mortgaged the properties covered by the insurance, it was held hat the insurer was justified in withholding payment to the insured.