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.