Contract of insurance

Filipino Merchants vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1989]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

In Filipino Merchants Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that under an “all risks” insurance policy, the insured only needs to prove the fact of loss or damage. The burden then shifts to the insurer to demonstrate that the loss was due to an excepted peril. In this case, the insurer failed to prove any exception, making it liable for the claim.

Filipino Merchants vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1989] Read More »

Philamlife vs. Auditor [January 18, 1968]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

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.

Philamlife vs. Auditor [January 18, 1968] Read More »

Tan Chay Heng vs. The West Coast Life Insurance Co. [November 21, 1927]

Leave a Comment / Case Digests, Commercial Law, Insurance Law /

In Tan Chay Heng v. The West Coast Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that the insurer’s defense against the insurance policy was not a rescission but a denial of the contract’s existence due to fraudulent representations. The case was remanded to the lower court for further examination.

Tan Chay Heng vs. The West Coast Life Insurance Co. [November 21, 1927] Read More »

Scroll to Top