SEC 2 3RD Party Liability insuranceTRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY V CA

Old lady was hit buy "Ladylove taxi cab". She sued insurer,

operator & driver. SC ruled that insurer is not liable since

the liability contract is between the insurer and the taxi

operator

SEC 2 Contract of AdhesionNew World International V NYK

New World is the consignee of items shipped via NYK

which were insured under an "all risk" marine

insurance policy by Seaboard. The items were

damaged but Seaboard refused to indemnify,

requiring an "itemized list" from New World which

was not included in the contract.

SEC 2 Meaning of "doing insurance biz"White Gold Marine Services V Pioneer Insurance

Pioneer (agent) & Steamship (insurere) refused to

renew White Gold. In retaliation, whitegold assailed

the licenses of the two, since they are engaged in the

insurance business. Pioneer & Steamship contends

they are not, claiming that thet are PCI (mutual

insurance)

GULF RESORTS V PHIL GULF INSURANCEContract of AdhesionSEC 2

Resort owner in La Union, insurance policy &

premiums paid covered only 2 swimming pools. Gulf

resorts claim for the other pools that were damaged.

Avers liberal approach since it is a contract of

adhesion

Republic V Del Monte

Philippine Healthcare Providers V CIR

Issues: WON a health care agreement in the nature of an

insurance contract and therefore subject to the documentary

stamp tax (DST) imposed under Section 185 of Republic

Act 8424 (Tax Code of 1997)

Philamcare V CA WON health care providers are insurance contracts?

Contract of AdhesionETERNAL V PHILAM LIFE

An examination of the provision of the POLICY under effective date of benefit, would show ambiguity between its two sentences. The

first sentence appears to state that the insurance coverage of the clients of Eternal already became effective upon contracting a loan with

Eternal while the second sentence appears to require Philamlife to approve the insurance contract before the same can become effective.It

must be remembered that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and

strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the latter’s interest. On the other hand, the seemingly conflicting provisions must be

harmonized to mean that upon a party’s purchase of a memorial lot on installment from Eternal, an insurance contract covering the lot

purchaser is created and the same is effective, valid, and binding until terminated by Philamlife by disapproving the insurance application.

The second sentence of the Creditor Group Life Policy on the Effective Date of Benefit is in the nature of a resolutory condition which

would lead to the cessation of the insurance contract. Moreover, the mere inaction of the insurer on the insurance application must not

work to prejudice the insured; it cannot be interpreted as a termination of the insurance contract. The termination of the insurance contract

by the insurer must be explicit and unambiguous.

SEC 7 Control TestFILIPINAS DE SEGUROS V CHRISTERN

that "anyone except a public enemy may be insured".

However, elementary rule of justice (in the absence of

specific provisions in the Insurance Law) require that the

premium paid by the respondent for the period covered by

its policy from December 11, 1941, should be returned by

the petitioner.

SEC 7 Abrogation - warCONSTANTINO V ASIA LIFE

Philippine law on insurance and the Civil Code) are mostly

based from the Civil Code of California, An intention to

supplement our laws with the prevailing principles of the

US arises. Thus, Prof. Vance of Yaled declares that the

United States Rule must be followed, where “the contract is

not merely suspended but is abrogated by reason of non-

payment of premiums since the time of payments is peculiar

to the essence of the contract. In said case it was hold that

promptness of payment is essential in the business of life

insurance since all calculations of the company is based on

the hypothesis of prompt payments.

SEC 8 Mortatge redemption insurance clause, the insured is still a party in interestGREPALIFE V CA

SEC 8 GEAGONIA V CA

Different interests of the mortgagor & mortgage in an

insurance contract. Cebu Tesing Textile, as his creditor,

had insurable interest on the stocks.

SEC 8 SubrogationPALILEO V COSIO that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”

Grepalife is liable to pay the insurance claim. Medarda is a proper party in interest (note that it was Wilfredo who has

been paying the premium, as the insured, he is the real party in interest and this status was transferred to his widow).

The group life insurance or “mortgage redemption insurance”  provides that DBP as the mortgagee is merely an assignee 

of Wilfredo; and that in the event of Wilfredo’s death before his indebtedness to DBP is paid, proceeds from the insurance 

shall first be applied to the sum of the balance insured. But this does not cease Wilfredo to be a party to the insurance

contract.

Wherethecontract is for indemnity against actual loss orpayment, then third p

ersonscannot proceed against the insurer, the contract being

solely to reimbursetheinsured for liability actually discharged by him thru

payment to third persons, said third persons ‘recourse being thus limited to

the insured alone

An insurance premium is the consideration paid an insurer for undertaking to

indemnify the insured against a specified peril.[27] In fire, casualty, and

marine insurance, the premium payable becomes a debt as soon as the risk

attaches.[28] In the subject policy, no premium payments were made with

regard to earthquake shock coverage, except on the two swimming pools. 

There is no mention of any premium payable for the other resort properties

with regard to earthquake shock.  This is consistent with the history of

petitioner’s previous insurance policies from AHAC-AIU.

No ambiguity in the terms, must be applied as is.

Seaboard cannot pretend that the above documents are inadequate

since they were precisely the documents listed in its insurance

policy. Being a contract of adhesion, an insurance policy is

construed strongly against the insurer who prepared it. The Court

cannot read a requirement in the policy that was not there.

, a mutual insurance company is a cooperative enterprise where the

members are both the insurer and insured. In it, the members all

contribute, by a system of premiums or assessments, to the

creation of a fund from which all losses and liabilities are paid, and

where the profits are divided among themselves, in proportion to

their interest. Additionally, mutual insurance associations, or clubs,

provide three types of coverage, namely, protection and indemnity,

war risks, and defense costs.

Steamship & Pioneer is doing an insurance business, permits must

be secured.

the business of insurance is imbued with public interest.  It is

subject to regulation by the State, with respect not only to the

relations between the insurer and the insured, but also to the

internal affairs of insurance companies.[8]  As this case is

undeniably endowed with public interest and involves a matter of

public policy, this Court shall not shirk from its duty to educate the

bench and the bar by formulating guiding and controlling principles,

precepts, doctrines and rules.Petitioner's health care agreement is primarily a contract of indemnity. DST

under Section 185 of the 1997 Tax Code is imposed on the privilege of

making or renewing any policy of insurance (except life, marine, inland and

fire insurance), bond or obligation in the nature of indemnity for loss,

damage, or liability.

Herein, the insurable interest of Trinos' husband

in obtaining the health care agreement was his own health. The

health care agreement was in the nature of

non-life insurance, which is primarily a contract of indemnity. Once

the member incurs hospital, medical or

any other expense arising from sickness, injury or other stipulated

contingent, the health care provider must

pay for the same to the extent agreed upon under the contract.

An examination of the provision of the POLICY under effective date of benefit, would show ambiguity between its two sentences. The

first sentence appears to state that the insurance coverage of the clients of Eternal already became effective upon contracting a loan with

Eternal while the second sentence appears to require Philamlife to approve the insurance contract before the same can become effective.It

must be remembered that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and

strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the latter’s interest. On the other hand, the seemingly conflicting provisions must be

harmonized to mean that upon a party’s purchase of a memorial lot on installment from Eternal, an insurance contract covering the lot

purchaser is created and the same is effective, valid, and binding until terminated by Philamlife by disapproving the insurance application.

The second sentence of the Creditor Group Life Policy on the Effective Date of Benefit is in the nature of a resolutory condition which

would lead to the cessation of the insurance contract. Moreover, the mere inaction of the insurer on the insurance application must not

work to prejudice the insured; it cannot be interpreted as a termination of the insurance contract. The termination of the insurance contract

by the insurer must be explicit and unambiguous.

A corporation was subject to enemy legislation when it was controlled by

enemies, namely managed under the influence of individuals or corporations

themselves considered as enemies

that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”

Grepalife is liable to pay the insurance claim. Medarda is a proper party in interest (note that it was Wilfredo who has

been paying the premium, as the insured, he is the real party in interest and this status was transferred to his widow).

The group life insurance or “mortgage redemption insurance”  provides that DBP as the mortgagee is merely an assignee 

of Wilfredo; and that in the event of Wilfredo’s death before his indebtedness to DBP is paid, proceeds from the insurance 

shall first be applied to the sum of the balance insured. But this does not cease Wilfredo to be a party to the insurance

contract.

that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”

that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”

that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”

that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” “the mortgagee may insure his interest in the property independently of the mortgagor. In that event, upon the destruction of the property the insurance money paid to the mortgagee will not inure to the benefit of the mortgagor, and the amount due under the mortgage debt remains unchanged. The mortgagee, however, is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but it passes by subrogation to the insurer, to the extent of the insurance money paid.”

SEC 11 New:

Nothwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the insured does not change the beneficiary during his lifetime, the designation shal be deemed irrevocable

SEC 12 Order of Forfeiture: Order of Forfeiture:

relative of the insured unless disqualified 1. other beneficiaries unless disqualified

2. in accordance with policy

3. if policy is silent, to the estate of insured

Nothwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the insured does not change the beneficiary during his lifetime, the designation shal be deemed irrevocable

Nothwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the insured does not change the beneficiary during his lifetime, the designation shal be deemed irrevocable