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 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 »
