Case Digest

Malayan Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [September 26, 1988]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

In this case, Sio Choy’s jeep, insured by Malayan Insurance for own damage and third-party liability, collided with a bus, causing injuries to passenger Vallejos. The Supreme Court ruled that both the insured (Sio Choy) and the insurer (Malayan Insurance) are solidarily liable to the victim, with the insurer entitled to reimbursement from the negligent third party’s employer, San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., through subrogation.

Malayan Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [September 26, 1988] Read More »

Pioneer Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [July 28, 1989]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

In this case, Pioneer Insurance paid a bond for Jacob Lim’s aircraft purchase and sought reimbursement from Lim and his co-indemnitors. However, since Pioneer had already recovered the amount from its reinsurer, the Supreme Court ruled that only the reinsurer could claim subrogation rights, dismissing Pioneer’s case.

Pioneer Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [July 28, 1989] Read More »

Cathay Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [June 5, 1989]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

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 »

Filipino Merchants vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1989]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

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 »

Lea Mer Industries vs. Malayan Insurance [September 30, 2005]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

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 »

Philamlife vs. Auditor [January 18, 1968]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

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.

Philamlife vs. Auditor [January 18, 1968] Read More »

Prudential vs. Equinox [September 13, 2007]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

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.

Prudential vs. Equinox [September 13, 2007] Read More »

Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co. [August 10, 1918]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

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 »

Scroll to Top