In Cathay Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that insurers must pay claims within 90 days after the insured submits proof of loss. Unreasonable delays make insurers liable for double interest on the claim amount. The Court upheld the insured’s right to timely payment and penalties for insurer delays.
Cathay Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [June 5, 1989] Read More »
In Filipino Merchants Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that under an “all risks” insurance policy, the insured only needs to prove the fact of loss or damage. The burden then shifts to the insurer to demonstrate that the loss was due to an excepted peril. In this case, the insurer failed to prove any exception, making it liable for the claim.
Filipino Merchants vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1989] Read More »
In Lea Mer Industries vs. Malayan Insurance, the Supreme Court held that Lea Mer, as a common carrier, was liable for the loss of cargo when its vessel sank during a typhoon. The Court emphasized that common carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence and cannot solely attribute losses to fortuitous events without sufficient proof.
Lea Mer Industries vs. Malayan Insurance [September 30, 2005] Read More »
In Jarque vs. Smith Bell & Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurer is liable for general average contributions, even if the policy covers only “absolute total loss.” The Court emphasized that such liability arises from a quasi-contract implied by law, benefiting all parties with an interest in the vessel or cargo.
In Philamlife vs. Auditor, the Supreme Court ruled that reinsurance treaties are contracts for insurance, not of insurance. Therefore, obligations to remit premiums become fixed only upon executing specific reinsurance cessions. Consequently, Philamlife’s remittances were subject to the Margin Law’s fees, as the treaty lacked a binding obligation for premium payments.
In Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. vs. Equinox Land Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that a surety is solidarily liable with the principal obligor. Equinox terminated its contract with J’Marc Construction due to violations and delays. Prudential, as J’Marc’s surety, was held equally responsible for the obligations.
In Villacorta vs. Insurance Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that when an insured vehicle is taken without the owner’s consent, it constitutes theft under the insurance policy, regardless of the “Authorized Driver” clause. Therefore, the insurer is liable for the loss.
Villacorta vs. Insurance Commission [October 28, 1980] Read More »
In Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co., the Supreme Court held that, absent fraud, the valuation stated in an insurance policy is conclusive between the parties. The insurer’s agent completed the application, and the insured did not misrepresent the automobile’s value or ownership. Therefore, the insurer was liable for the loss.
Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co. [August 10, 1918] Read More »
In CCC Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a driver’s license, appearing valid on its face, is presumed genuine. The burden of proving its invalidity lies with the insurer. Since the insurer failed to disprove the driver’s license validity, the claim was upheld.
CCC Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals [January 30, 1970] Read More »
In Tagaytay Realty Co., Inc. vs. Gacutan, the Supreme Court ruled that a developer’s failure to complete subdivision amenities within one year, as mandated by P.D. No. 957, excuses the buyer from paying penalties. However, the buyer remains obligated to pay agreed-upon interest on the purchase price.
Tagaytay Realty Co., Inc. vs. Gacutan [July 1, 2015] Read More »
