Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digests Assignment in Insurance
Digests Assignment in Insurance
Presented to
By
MLC 3A-1
October 2018
2
Facts:
The CA affirmed the RTC and ruled that the claim of the
petitioner has no basis. Also, in the absence of authentication by a
competent witness, the alleged CDH medical records of the insured
are deemed hearsay. Hence, inadmissible.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC in
dismissing Manulife’s complaint for rescission of insurance contracts
for failure to prove concealment on the part of the insured.
3
Held:
No, the CA did not err in affirming the decision of the RTC in
dismissing Manulife’s complaint for rescission of insurance contracts
for failure to prove concealment on the part of the insured.
The law provides that intentional or fraudulent omission, on
the part of one insured, to communicate information of matters
proving or tending to prove the falsity of a warranty, entitles the
insurer to rescind. Also, the fraudulent intent on the part of the
insured must be established to entitle the insurer to rescind the
contract. Here, there is absence of authentication by a competent
witness with regard to the CDH medical records of the insured which
was rendered inadmissible for being hearsay. Hence, the Court of
Appeals was correct in affirming the decision of the Regional Trial
Court for dismissing the complaint of the petitioner insurance
company.
4
Issue:
Whether or not the Petitioner is Liable for the Claims of the
Respondents in the Absence of Proof.
Held:
Yes. The petitioner is liable to deliver the Claims of the
respondent.
Contrary to the claim of the petitioner; it miserably failed to
prove the fact of intoxication during the trial. Aside from the Medico
Legal Certificate and the Pagpapatunay, which were stripped of
evidentiary value because of the dubious circumstances under which
they were obtained, the petitioner did not adduce other proof to
justify the avoidance of the policy.
For instance, petitioner could have adduced affidavits of
witnesses who were present at the scene of the accident to attest to
the fact that the driver was intoxicated. It did not. Upon the other
hand, respondents duly established their right to claim the proceeds
of a validly subsisting contract of insurance. Such contract was never
denied.
What further dampens petitioner's position is the absence of the
crucial fact of intoxication in the blotter report which officially
documented the incident. Entries in police records made by a police
officer in the performance of the duty especially enjoined by law are
prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and their probative
value may be substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence.
In this case, the lack of statement to the effect that the driver was
under the influence of alcohol in the said report is too significant to
escape the attention of this Court.
6
Facts:
Petitioner was the registered owner of a 1992 Mitsubishi
Montero with plate number GTJ-777 (vehicle), while respondent is a
domestic corporation engaged in the insurance business. On
September 27, 1996, respondent issued a comprehensive commercial
vehicle policy to petitioner in the amount of ₱1,500,000.00 over the
vehicle for a period of one year commencing on September 27, 1996
up to September 27, 1997. Respondent also issued two other
commercial vehicle policies to petitioner covering two other motor
vehicles for the same period.
To collect the premiums and other charges on the policies,
respondent's agent, (Trans-Pacific), issued a statement of account to
petitioner's company, Noah's Ark Merchandising (Noah's Ark).
Noah's Ark immediately processed the payments and issued a Far
East Bank check dated September 27, 1996 payable to Trans-Pacific on
the same day. The check bearing the amount of ₱140,893.50
represents payment for the three insurance policies, with ₱55,620.60
for the premium and other charges over the vehicle. However,
nobody from Trans-Pacific picked up the check that day (September
27) because its president and general manager, was celebrating his
birthday. Trans-Pacific informed Noah's Ark that its messenger
would get the check the next day, September 28.
In the evening of September 27, 1996, while under the official
custody of Noah's Ark marketing manager Pacquing as a service
company vehicle, the vehicle was stolen in the vicinity of SM
Megamall at Ortigas, Mandaluyong City. Despite search and retrieval
efforts, the vehicle was not recovered.
Oblivious of the incident, Trans-Pacific picked up the check the
next day, September 28.
On October 1, 1996, Pacquing informed petitioner of the
vehicle's loss. Thereafter, petitioner reported the loss and filed a claim
with respondent for the insurance proceeds of ₱1,500,000.00. After
investigation, respondent denied petitioner's claim on the ground
that there was no insurance contract.
8
Issue:
Whether or not there is a binding insurance contract between
petitioner and respondent.
Held:
No. There is no insurance contract between the parties.
Insurance is a contract whereby one undertakes for a
consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage or liability
arising from an unknown or contingent event. Just like any other
contract, it requires a cause or consideration. The consideration is the
premium, which must be paid at the time and in the way and manner
specified in the policy. If not so paid, the policy will lapse and be
forfeited by its own terms. The law, however, limits the parties'
autonomy as to when payment of premium may be made for the
9