insurance case

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 9 | Comments: 0 | Views: 126
of 2
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Tibay v CA G.R. No. 119655. May 24, 1996
J. Bellosillo:
Facts:
Fortune Life issued a fire insurance Policy to Tibay on her two-storey residential building at
Zobel Street, Makati City. The insurance was for P600,000.00 covering the period from January
23, 1987 to January 23, 1988. On January 23 1987, Tibay only paid P600.00 of 3,000 peso
premium and left a balance.
The insured building was completely destroyed by fire. Tibay then paid the balance. On the same
day, she filed a claim on the policy. Her claim was accordingly referred to the adjuster,
Goodwill, which immediately wrote Violeta requesting her to furnish it with the necessary
documents for the investigation and processing of her claim. Petitioner complied, and she signed
a non-waiver agreement.
Fortune denied the claim for violation of the Insurance Code. Tibay sued for damages in the
amount of P600,000.00 representing the total coverage of the policy.
The trial court ruled for petitioners and made fortune liable for the total value of the insured
building and personal properties. The Court of Appeals reversed the court by removing liability
from Fortune after returning the premium.
Hence this petition for review.
The petitioner contended that Fortune remained liable under the subject fire insurance policy in
spite of the failure of petitioners to pay their premium in full.
Issue: May a fire insurance policy be valid, binding and enforceable upon mere partial payment
of premium?
Held: No. Petition dismissed.
Ratio:
The pertinent provisions read:
2. This policy including any renewal thereof and/or any endorsement thereon is not in force until
the premium has been fully paid to and duly receipted by the Company in the manner provided
herein.
This policy shall be deemed effective, valid and binding upon the Company only when the
premiums therefor have actually been paid in full and duly acknowledged in a receipt signed by
any authorized official of the company
Where the premium has only been partially paid and the balance paid only after the peril insured
against has occurred, the insurance contract did not take effect and the insured cannot collect at

all on the policy. The Insurance Code which says that no policy or contract of insurance issued
by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium has been paid.
What does “unless and until the premium thereof has been paid” mean?
Escosura v. San Miguel- the legislative practice was to interpret “with pay” in accordance to the
intention of distinguish between full and partial payment, where the modifying term is used.
Petitioners used Philippine Phoenix v. Woodworks, where partial payment of the premium made
the policy effective during the whole period of the policy.
The SC didn’t consider the 1967 Phoenix case as persuasive due to the different factual scenario.
In Makati Tuscany v CA, the parties mutually agreed that the premiums could be paid in
installments, hence, this Court refused to invalidate the insurance policy.
Nothing in Article 77 of the Code suggested that the parties may not agree to allow payment of
the premiums in installment, or to consider the contract as valid and binding upon payment of the
first premium.
Phoenix and Tuscany demonstrated the waiver of prepayment in full by the insurer. In this case
however, there was no waiver. There was a stipulation that the policy wasn’t in force until the
premium has been fully paid and receipted.
There was no juridical tie of indemnification from the fractional payment of premium. The
insurance contract itself expressly provided that the policy would be effective only when the
premium was paid in full.
Verily, it is elemental law that the payment of premium is requisite to keep the policy of
insurance in force. If the premium is not paid in the manner prescribed in the policy as intended
by the parties the policy is ineffective. Partial payment even when accepted as a partial payment
will not keep the policy alive.
South Sea v CA stipulated 2 exceptions to the requirement of payment of the entire premium as a
prerequisite to the validity of the insurance contract. These are when in case the insurance
coverage relates to life or insurance when a grace period applies, and when the insurer makes a
written acknowledgment of the receipt of premium to be conclusive evidence of payment.
Hence, in the absence of clear waiver of prepayment in full by the insurer, the insured cannot
collect on the proceeds of the policy.
“The terms of the insurance policy constitute the measure of the insurer’s liability. In the absence
of statutory prohibition to the contrary, insurance companies have the same rights as individuals
to limit their liability and to impose whatever conditions they deem best upon their obligations
not inconsistent with public policy.”

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close