Construction in Insurance

Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions

1. Ty v. First National Surety

Whether Diosdado Ty is entitled to indemnity under the insurance policy for the disability of his left hand.
While the Court sympathizes with the plaintiff or his employer, for whose benefit the policies were issued,
it can not go beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all of which define partial
disability as loss of either hand by an amputation through the bones of the wrist.” There was no such
amputation in the case at bar.

2. De la Cruz v. Capital Insurance

Eduardo de la Cruz was the holder of an accident insurance policy. Eduardo slipped and was hit by his
opponent on the left part of the back of the head, causing Eduardo to fall and death in a non-pro boxing
bout. Whether the death of the insured is covered by the policy. The terms “accident” and “accidental”
have not acquired any technical meaning, and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common
acceptation. In the present case, while the participation of the insured in the boxing contest is voluntary, if
without the unintentional slipping of the deceased, perhaps he could not have received that blow in the
head and would not have died.

Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer

1. Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union Insurer

Whether gasoline may be construed as oil to warrant the forfeiture of claims under the insurance policy.
By reason of the exclusive control of the insurance company over the terms and phraseology of the
contract, the ambiguity must be held strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured,
especially to avoid forfeiture. There is no reason why the prohibition of keeping gasoline in the premises
could not be expressed clearly and unmistakably, in the language and terms that the general public can
readily understand, without resort to obscure esoteric expression.