In De la Cruz v. The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the accidental death of Eduardo de la Cruz during a boxing match was covered by his insurance policy. The Court emphasized that unforeseen events during voluntary activities can be considered accidents under insurance contracts.
De la Cruz vs. The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. [June 30, 1966] Read More »
In FGU Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a vehicle owner is not liable for damages caused by a lessee in the absence of an employer-employee relationship, leading to case dismissal.
FGU Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals [March 31, 2005] Read More »
In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that an insured’s contributory negligence, such as mistakenly believing a gun was unloaded, does not equate to willful exposure to peril or suicide. Therefore, the insurer remains liable for the policy’s proceeds.
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals [July 17, 1992] Read More »
In Filipinas Life Assurance Co. v. Nava, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that an insurer’s refusal to grant a policy loan, as stipulated in the insurance contract, entitles the insured to rescind the contract and receive a full refund of premiums paid.
Filipinas Life Assurance vs. Nava [May 20, 1966] Read More »
In K.S. Young v. Midland Textile Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that storing hazardous goods, like fireworks, in an insured premises violated the insurance policy’s terms. This breach justified the insurer’s denial of the claim, even if the stored items didn’t directly cause the fire.
K.S. Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Co. [March 31, 191] Read More »
In New Life Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that failing to disclose existing insurance policies, as required by the “Other Insurance Clause,” voids claims under those policies. The Court emphasized that clear policy terms must be adhered to, and the insured’s knowledge of other policies is irrelevant.
In Pioneer Insurance v. Yap, the Supreme Court ruled that Pioneer was not liable for the fire insurance claim due to Yap’s failure to disclose additional insurance policies, violating the policy’s terms. The Court also emphasized that the insurer was not required to waive the endorsement of co-insurance, as there was no proof of substitution.
In Tan Chay Heng v. The West Coast Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that the insurer’s defense against the insurance policy was not a rescission but a denial of the contract’s existence due to fraudulent representations. The case was remanded to the lower court for further examination.
Tan Chay Heng vs. The West Coast Life Insurance Co. [November 21, 1927] Read More »
In Tan v. Court of Appeals and The Philippine American Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurer can still rescind a policy during the two-year incontestability period, even if the insured is deceased. The case emphasized that misrepresentation by the insured, including failure to disclose health conditions, voids the policy.
Tan vs. Court of Appeals and The Philippine American Life Insurance Co. [June 29, 1989] Read More »
In Pacific Banking v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that non-disclosure of co-insurances by the original insured, Paramount, violated the policy’s conditions and invalidated the contract. The Court also emphasized that Pacific’s failure to submit a formal proof of loss before filing a lawsuit barred its claim.
Pacific Banking vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1988] Read More »
