In Pacific Banking v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that non-disclosure of co-insurances by the original insured, Paramount, violated the policy’s conditions and invalidated the contract. The Court also emphasized that Pacific’s failure to submit a formal proof of loss before filing a lawsuit barred its claim.
Pacific Banking vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1988] Read More »
In Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance policy is a contract of adhesion, meaning any ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. The Court emphasized that insurers must clearly and explicitly state any exceptions or limitations to coverage within the policy.
Edillon vs. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. [September 30, 1982] Read More »
In Argente v. West Coast Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance contract can be rescinded if the insured conceals material facts, even unintentionally. The Court emphasized that all relevant information must be disclosed to the insurer to ensure the validity of the policy.
Argente vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co. [March 19, 1928] Read More »
In Sunlife Assurance v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that an insured’s failure to disclose significant health issues, such as recent hospitalization for renal failure, allows the insurer to rescind the policy, even if the undisclosed condition is unrelated to the cause of death.
Sunlife Assurance vs. Court of Appeals [June 22, 1995] Read More »
In Canilang v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that an insured’s failure to disclose prior medical consultations constitutes material concealment, allowing the insurer to rescind the policy. The Court emphasized that concealment need not be intentional; even unintentional omissions can void the contract.
In Ng v. Asian Crusader Life Assurance Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that for an insurer to rescind a policy due to misrepresentation, the misrepresentation must be both material and fraudulent. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving such misrepresentation lies with the insurer.
In Keppel Cebu Shipyard v. Pioneer Insurance, the Supreme Court found both Keppel and WG&A equally negligent for a fire on M/V Superferry 3. The Court upheld the validity of a contract clause limiting Keppel’s liability to ₱50 million, emphasizing that contracts of adhesion are enforceable unless the weaker party is deprived of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.
Keppel Cebu Shipyard vs. Pioneer Insurance [September 18, 2012] Read More »
In Keppel Cebu Shipyard v. Pioneer Insurance, the Supreme Court held both Keppel and WG&A equally negligent for a fire on M/V Superferry 3. The Court upheld a contract clause limiting Keppel’s liability to ₱50 million, emphasizing that such limitations are valid if both parties had the opportunity to negotiate terms.
Keppel Cebu Shipyard vs. Pioneer Insurance [September 25, 2009] Read More »
