In FEB Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Spouses Baylon, the Supreme Court ruled that the registered owner of a vehicle, even if leased to another party, is directly and primarily responsible for damages caused by the vehicle. This liability exists regardless of any exemption clauses in the lease contract.
FEB Leasing and Finance Corp. vs. Sps. Baylon [June 29, 2011] Read More »
In Shafer v. Judge and Makati Insurance Co., Inc., the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that in a criminal case involving reckless imprudence with a civil aspect, the accused can implead their third-party liability (TPL) insurer as a third-party defendant. This allows the insurer’s liability to be addressed within the same proceeding, promoting judicial efficiency.
Shafer vs. Judge and Makati Insurance Co., Inc. [November 14, 1988] Read More »
In Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Producers Bank, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a bank’s insurance policy did not cover losses from a robbery involving personnel supplied by third-party agencies, as they were considered the bank’s authorized representatives.
In Philippine Home Assurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the Philippine Supreme Court held that a carrier is liable for damages to cargo caused by fire if the fire resulted from the carrier’s negligence. The Court emphasized that fire is not considered a natural disaster exempting the carrier from liability, especially when negligence is involved.
In Republic v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that mutual life insurance companies operating as bona fide cooperatives are exempt from paying taxes on life insurance premiums and documentary stamps, even without registration with the Cooperative Development Authority.
Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada [October 14, 2005] Read More »
In Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Philippine American Life Insurance Co., the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that an insurer’s inaction and acceptance of premiums can imply approval of an insurance application, making the insurer liable for claims. The Court emphasized that ambiguities in insurance contracts should be interpreted in favor of the insured.
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 »
