Geagonia v CA G.R. No.

114427 February 6, 1995

Facts: Geagonia, owner of a store, obtained from Country Bankers fire insurance policy for P100,000.00. The 1 year policy and covered thestock trading of dry goods. The policy noted the requirement that "3. The insured shall give notice to the Company of any insurance or insurances already effected, or which may subsequently be effected, covering any of the property or properties consisting of stocks in trade, goods in process and/or inventories only hereby insured, and unless notice be given and the particulars of such insurance or insurances be stated therein or endorsed in this policy pursuant to Section 50 of the Insurance Code, by or on behalf of the Company before the occurrence of any loss or damage, all benefits under this policy shall be deemed forfeited, provided however, that this condition shall not apply when the total insurance or insurances in force at the time of the loss or damage is not more than P200,000.00." The petitioners stocks were destroyed by fire. He then filed a claim which was subsequently denied because the petitioners stocks were covered by two other fire insurance policies for Php 200,000 issued by PFIC. The basis of the private respondent's denial was the petitioner's allegedviolation of Condition 3 of the policy. Geagonia then filed a complaint against the private respondent in the Insurance Commission for the recovery of P100,000.00 under fire insurance policy and damages. He claimed that he knew the existence of the other two policies. But, he said that he had no knowledge of the provision in the private respondent's policy requiring him to inform it of the prior policies and this requirement was not mentioned to him by the private respondent's agent. The Insurance Commission found that the petitioner did not violate Condition 3 as he had no knowledge of the existence of the two fire insurance policies obtained from the PFIC; that it was Cebu Tesing Textiles w/c procured the PFIC policies w/o informing him or securing his consent; and that Cebu Tesing Textile, as his creditor, had insurable interest on the stocks. The Insurance Commission then ordered the respondent company to pay complainant the sum of P100,000.00 with interest and attorneys fees. CA reversed the decision of the Insurance Commission because it found that the petitioner knew of the existence of the two other policies issued by the PFIC. Issues: 1. WON the petitioner had not disclosed the two insurance policies when he obtained the fire insurance and thereby violated Condition 3 of the policy. 2. WON he is prohibited from recovering Held: Yes. No. Petition Granted Ratio: 1. The court agreed with the CA that the petitioner knew of the prior policies issued by the PFIC. His letter of 18 January 1991 to the private respondent conclusively proves this knowledge. His testimony to the contrary before the Insurance Commissioner and which the latter relied upon

cannot prevail over a written admission made ante litem motam. It was, indeed, incredible that he did not know about the prior policies since these policies were not new or original. 2. Stated differently, provisions, conditions or exceptions in policies which tend to work a forfeiture of insurance policies should be construed most strictly against those for whose benefits they are inserted, and most favorably toward those against whom they are intended to operate. With these principles in mind, Condition 3 of the subject policy is not totally free from ambiguity and must be meticulously analyzed. Such analysis leads us to conclude that (a) the prohibitionapplies only to double insurance, and (b) the nullity of the policy shall only be to the extent exceeding P200,000.00 of the total policies obtained. Furthermore, by stating within Condition 3 itself that such condition shall not apply if the total insurance in force at the time of loss does not exceed P200,000.00, the private respondent wasamenable to assume a co-insurer's liability up to a loss not exceeding P200,000.00. What it had in mind was to discourage over-insurance. Indeed, the rationale behind the incorporation of "other insurance" clause in fire policies is to prevent over-insurance and thus avert the perpetration of fraud. When a property owner obtains insurance policies from two or more insurers in a total amount that exceeds the property's value, the insured may have an inducement to destroy the property for the purpose of collecting the insurance. The public as well as the insurer is interested in preventing a situation in which a fire would be profitable to the insured.

GREPALIFE V. CA

89 SCRA 543
Facts:
> On March 14, 1957, respondent Ngo Hing filed an application with Grepalife for a 20-yr endowment policy for 50T on the life of his one year old daughter Helen Go. > All the essential data regarding Helen was supplied by Ngo to Lapu-Lapu Mondragon, the branch manager of Grepalife-Cebu. Mondragon then typed the data on the application form which was later signed by Ngo. > Ngo then paid the insurance premium and a binding deposit receipt was issued to him. The binding receipt contained the following provision: If the applicant shall not have been insurable xxx and the Company declines to approve the application, the insurance applied for shall not have been in force at any time and the sum paid shall be returned to the applicant upon the surrender of this receipt.

> Mondragon wrote on the bottom of the application form his strong recommendation for the approval of the insurance application. > On Apr 30, 1957, Mondragon received a letter from Grepalife Main office disapproving the insurance application of Ngo for the simple reason that the 20yr endowment plan is not available for minors below 7 yrs old. > Mondragon wrote back the main office again strongly recommending the approval of the endowment plan on the life of Helen, adding that Grepalife was the only insurance company NOT selling endowment plans to children. > On may 1957, Helen died of influenza with complication of broncho pneumonia. Ngo filed a claim with Gepalife, but the latter denied liability on the ground that there was no contract between the insurer and the insured and a binding receipt is NOT evidence of such contract.

Issue:
Whether or not the binding deposit receipt, constituted a temporary contract of life insurance.

Held:
NO. The binding receipt in question was merely an acknowledgement on behalf of the company, that the latters branch office had received from the applicant, the insurance premium and had accepted the application subject for processing by the insurance company, and that the latter will either approve or reject the same on the basis of whether or not the applicant is insurable on standard rates.

Since Grepalife disapproved the insurance application of Ngo, the binding deposit receipt had never became on force at any time, pursuant to par. E of the said receipt. A binding receipt is manifestly merely conditional and does NOT insure outright. Where an agreement is made between the applicant and the agent, NO liability shall attach until the principal approves the risk and a receipt is given by the agent.

The acceptance is merely conditional, and is subordinated to the act of the company in approving or rejecting the application. Thus in life insurance, a binding slip or binding receipt does NOT insure by itself.

[G.R. No. 132607. May 5, 1999]

CEBU SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS, INC., petitioner, vs. WILLIAM LINES, INC. and PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE and ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

Private respondent William Lines, Inc. was the owner of M/V Manila City, a luxury passenger-cargo vessel, which caught fire and sank while undergoing dry-docking and repairs within the premises of petitioner Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. (CSEW) on February 16, 1991. The subject vessel was insured with private respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Company, Inc. for P45 million. William Lines, Inc. sued CSEW for damages and impleaded Prudential as co-plaintiff, after the latter had paid William Lines, Inc. the value of the hull and machinery insurance on the M/V Manila City. As a result of such payment Prudential was subrogated to the claim of P45 million, representing the value of the said insurance it paid. The trial court rendered a decision against CSEW. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the trial court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the appellate court. Hence, the present petition. CSEW maintained that prudential cannot be the subrogee of William against CSEW because the latter is a co assured in the insurance policy. On the issue of subrogation, petitioner contends that Prudential is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of William Lines, Inc., theorizing that (1) the fire which gutted M/V Manila City was an excluded risk and (2) it is a co-assured under the Marine Hull Insurance Policy. It is petitioners submission that the loss of M/V Manila City or damage thereto i s expressly excluded from the coverage of the insurance because the same resulted from want of due diligence by the Assured, Owners or Managers which is not included in the risks insured against. Again, this theory of petitioner is bereft of any factual or

legal basis. It proceeds from a wrong premise that the fire which gutted subject vessel was caused by the negligence of the employees of William Lines, Inc. To repeat, the issue of who between the parties was negligent has already been resolved against Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. Upon proof of payment by Prudential to William Lines, Inc., the former was subrogated to the right of the latter to indemnification from CSEW. As aptly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the law on the matter is succinct and clear, to wit: Art. 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.[12] Thus, when Prudential, after due verification of the merit and validity of the insurance claim of William Lines, Inc., paid the latter the total amount covered by its insurance policy, it was subrogated to the right of the latter to recover the insured loss from the liable party, CSEW. Petitioner theorizes further that there can be no right of subrogation as it is deemed a co-assured under the subject insurance policy. To buttress its stance that it is a co-assured, petitioner placed reliance on Clause 20 of of the Work Order which states: 20. The insurance on the vessel should be maintained by the customer and/or owner of the vessel during the period the contract is in effect.[13] According to petitioner, under the aforecited clause, William Lines, Inc., agreed to assume the risk of loss of the vessel while under drydock or repair and to such extent, it is benefited and effectively constituted as a co-assured under the policy. This theory of petitioner is devoid of sustainable merit. Clause 20 of the Work Order in question is clear in the sense that it requires William Lines to maintain insurance on the vessel during the period of dry-docking or repair. Concededly, such a stipulation works to the benefit of CSEW as the shiprepairer. However, the fact that CSEW benefits from the said stipulation does not automatically make it as a coassured of William Lines. The intention of the parties to make each other a co-assured under an insurance policy is to be gleaned principally from the insurance contract or policy itself and not from any other contract or agreement because the insurance policy denominates the assured and the beneficiaries of the insurance. The hull and machinery insurance procured by William Lines, Inc. from Prudential named only

William Lines, Inc. as the assured. There was no manifestation of any intention of William Lines, Inc. to constitute CSEW as a co-assured under subject policy. It is axiomatic that when the terms of a contract are clear its stipulations control. [14] Thus, when the insurance policy involved named only William Lines, Inc. as the assured thereunder, the claim of CSEW that it is a co-assured is unfounded. Then too, in the Additional Perils Clause of the same Marine Insurance Policy, it is provided that: Subject to the conditions of this Policy, this insurance also covers loss of or damage to vessel directly caused by the following: xxx Negligence of Charterers and/or Repairers, provided such Charterers and/or Repairers are not an Assured hereunder.[15] (emphasis supplied) As correctly pointed out by respondent Prudential, if CSEW were deemed a coassured under the policy, it would nullify any claim of William Lines, Inc. from Prudential for any loss or damage caused by the negligence of CSEW. Certainly, no shipowner would agree to make a shiprepairer a co-assured under such insurance policy; otherwise, any claim for loss or damage under the policy would be invalidated. Such result could not have been intended by William Lines, Inc Thus, in ruling on the validity and applicability of the stipulation limiting the liability of CSEW for negligence to One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos only, the facts and circumstances vis-a-vis the nature of the provision sought to be enforced should be considered, bearing in mind the principles of equity and fair play. WHEREFORE, for want of merit, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision, dated September 3, 1997, and Resolution, dated February 13, 1998, of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.