INSURANCE

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

G.R. No. 175773, June 17, 2013
A provision in the CBA between the company and the employees’ union in the nature of a non-life
insurance contract and essentially a contract of indemnity must be interpreted in accordance with the
general provisions of insurance law. Hence, the company is obligated to indemnify the covered
employees’ medical expenses incurred by their dependents only up to the extent of the expenses
actually incurred.

---

Under the collateral source rule, if an injured person receives compensation for his injuries from a
source wholly independent of the tortfeasor, the payment should not be deducted from the damages
which he would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor. It finds no application to cases involving no-fault
insurances under which the insured is indemnified for losses by insurance companies, regardless of
who was at fault in the incident generating the losses. Here, it is clear that MMPC is a no-fault insurer.
Hence, it cannot be obliged to pay hospitalization expenses of the dependents of its employees which
had already been paid by separate health insurance providers of said dependents.

Alpha Insurance and Surety Co. vs. Castor

GR No. 198174, September 2, 2013
When the terms of the insurance contract contain limitations on liability, courts should construe them in
such a way as to preclude the insurer from non- compliance with his obligation.

Malayan Insurance Company vs. PAP Co. (Phil. Branch)

G.R. No. 200784, August 7, 2013
Under Section 27 of the Insurance Code, “a concealment entitles the injured party to rescind a contract
of insurance.” Moreover, under Section 168 of the Insurance Code, the insurer is entitled to rescind the
insurance contract in case of an alteration in the use or condition of the thing insured.

Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Cresencia-Aban

G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013
The “Incontestability Clause” under Section 48 of the Insurance Code regulates both the actions of the
insurers and prospective takers of life insurance. It gives insurers enough time to inquire whether the
policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation; on the other hand, it forewarns
scheming individuals that their attempts at insurance fraud would be timely uncovered – thus deterring
them from venturing into such nefarious enterprise.

The incontestability period applies even in cases of fraud. Section 48 regulates both the actions of the
insurers and prospective takers of the life insurance. It gives insurers enough time to inquire whether
the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation; on the other hand, it forewarns
scheming individuals that their attempts at insurance fraud would be timely uncovered. Legitimate
policy holders are absolutely protected from unwarranted denial of their claims or delay in the
collection of insurance proceeds occasioned by allegations of fraud, concealment, or
misrepresentation by insurers, claims which may no longer be set up after the two-year period expires.

Section 48 prevents a situation where the insurer knowingly continues to accept annual premium
payments, only to later on deny a claim on the policy on specious claims of fraudulent concealment or
misrepresentation.

Paramount Insurance v. Spouses Remondeulaz

G.R. No. 173773, November 28, 2012
There is theft if the vehicle is taken with intent to gain without the consent of the insured-owner, even if
the vehicle was taken to the owner of a repair shop for the purpose of repair and in order to attach
accessories.