G.R. No. 92383 – SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NERISSA LIM, respondents.
CRUZ, J.
Rule Synopsis
Contributory negligence of the accused as to his death is not suicide or willful exposure to needless peril (which according to the Court were in pari materia) that would excuse the insurer from the payment of claims.
Facts
Felix Lim, Jr. had a life insurance policy with Sun Insurance, with his wife Nerissa Lim, as beneficiary. Two months after its issuance, Lim died of gunshot. His secretary testified that, on the eve of his mother’s birthday, Lim was playing with his handgun, he removed the magazine thereon and playfully pointed that gun at her, the secretary pushed it aside saying the gun might be loaded. Lim assured her that the gun was empty, he pointed it to his temple, what followed was a fatal explosion. Nerissa filed a claim with Sun Insurance. The latter denied on ground that the cause of Lim’s death was not an accident, i.e. it was a death consequent upon “[t]he insured person attempting to commit suicide or willfully exposing himself to needless peril.”
Nerissa thus filed a complaint for the recovery of the face value of the policy.
The CFI ruled in favor of Lim. The CA affirmed. The SC affirmed with modification, deleting the award for damages and attorney’s fees.
Issues
- Should Sun Insurance be absolved of liability on ground that Lim willfully exposed himself to needless peril?
- Was Lim entitled to recover damages?
Ruling and Discussion
- No. Sun Insurance should not be absolved of liability on ground that Lim willfully exposed himself to needless peril.
Suicide and willful exposure to needless peril are in pari materia because they both signify a disregard for one’s life. The only difference is in degree, as suicide imports a positive act of ending such life whereas the second act indicates a reckless risking of it that is almost suicidal in intent.
In this case, as the secretary testified, Lim had removed the magazine from the gun and believed it was no longer dangerous. He expressly assured her that the gun was not loaded. It is submitted that Lim did not willfully expose himself to needless peril when he pointed the gun to his temple because the fact is that he thought it was not unsafe to do so.
What bars the insured from recovering from the insurer on account of his own acts is a deliberate exposure to a known peril.
While Lim was unquestionably negligent, this negligence does not bar his wife from recovering from proceeds of the policy from the insurer. Contributory negligence is not one of the grounds enumerated in the policy exonerating the insurer from liability. Indeed, most accidents are caused by negligence. - No. Lim was not entitled to recover damages.
Sun Insurance was acting in good faith when it resisted the Lim’s claim on the ground that the death of the insured was covered by the exception. Thus, the award of moral and exemplary damages and of attorney’s fees is unjust and so must be disapproved.
Dispositive
Decision affirmed, but modified.