Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 477 views

    Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Haryet Supe
    1) Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Erlinda Fabie and her driver, claiming that Fabie's vehicle negligently collided with Pan Malayan's insured vehicle. 2) The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding that payment under the insurance policy precluded subrogation. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the insurer has a valid cause of action against third parties whose negligence caused damage to the insured vehicle, even if payment was made under the policy. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Haryet Supe
    477 views1 page
    1) Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Erlinda Fabie and her driver, claiming that Fabie's vehicle negligently collided with Pan Malayan's insured vehicle. 2) The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding that payment under the insurance policy precluded subrogation. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the insurer has a valid cause of action against third parties whose negligence caused damage to the insured vehicle, even if payment was made under the policy. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Original Title

    21. Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. v. Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Erlinda Fabie and her driver, claiming that Fabie's vehicle negligently collided with Pan Malayan's insured vehicle. 2) The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding that payment under the insurance policy precluded subrogation. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the insurer has a valid cause of action against third parties whose negligence caused damage to the insured vehicle, even if payment was made under the policy. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    477 views1 page

    Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Haryet Supe
    1) Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Erlinda Fabie and her driver, claiming that Fabie's vehicle negligently collided with Pan Malayan's insured vehicle. 2) The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding that payment under the insurance policy precluded subrogation. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the insurer has a valid cause of action against third parties whose negligence caused damage to the insured vehicle, even if payment was made under the policy. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pan Malayan Ins. Corp. v.

    Court of Appeals occasions defined these terms to mean that which takes place
    184 SCRA 54 "without one's foresight or expectation, an event that proceeds from
    CORTES, J.: an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause and,
    therefore, not expected" [De la Cruz v. The Capital Insurance &
    Facts: On December 10, 1985, PANMALAY filed a complaint for Surety Co., Inc.,]. Certainly, it cannot be inferred from jurisprudence
    damages with the RTC of Makati against private respondents Erlinda that these terms, without qualification, exclude events resulting in
    Fabie and her driver. PANMALAY averred the following: that it damage or loss due to the fault, recklessness or negligence of third
    insured a Mitsubishi Colt Lancer car with plate No. DDZ-431 and parties. The concept "accident" is not necessarily synonymous with
    registered in the name of Canlubang Automotive Resources the concept of "no fault". It may be utilized simply to distinguish
    Corporation [CANLUBANG]; that on May 26, 1985, due to the intentional or malicious acts from negligent or careless acts of man.
    "carelessness, recklessness, and imprudence" of the unknown driver
    of a pick-up with plate no. PCR-220, the insured car was hit and It must be reiterated that in this present case, the insurer
    suffered damages in the amount of P42,052.00; that PANMALAY PANMALAY as subrogee merely prays that it be allowed to institute
    defrayed the cost of repair of the insured car and, therefore, was an action to recover from third parties who allegedly caused damage
    subrogated to the rights of CANLUBANG against the driver of the to the insured vehicle, the amount which it had paid its assured under
    pick-up and his employer, Erlinda Fabie; and that, despite repeated the insurance policy. Having thus shown from the above discussion
    demands, defendants, failed and refused to pay the claim of that PANMALAY has a cause of action against third parties whose
    PANMALAY. negligence may have caused damage to CANLUBANG's car, the
    Court holds that there is no legal obstacle to the filing by
    On February 12, 1986, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss PANMALAY of a complaint for damages against private
    alleging that PANMALAY had no cause of action against them. respondents as the third parties allegedly responsible for the damage.
    They argued that payment under the "own damage" clause of the
    insurance policy precluded subrogation under Article 2207 of the Respondent Court of Appeals therefore committed reversible error in
    Civil Code, since indemnification thereunder was made on the sustaining the lower court's order which dismissed PANMALAY's
    assumption that there was no wrongdoer or no third party at fault. complaint against private respondents for no cause of action. Hence,
    it is now for the trial court to determine if in fact the damage caused
    Issue: Whether or not the insurer PANMALAY may institute an to the insured vehicle was due to the "carelessness, recklessness and
    action to recover the amount it had paid its assured in settlement of imprudence" of the driver of private respondent Erlinda Fabie.
    an insurance claim against private respondents as the parties
    allegedly responsible for the damage caused to the insured vehicle. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the present petition is
    GRANTED. Petitioner's complaint for damages against private
    Held: It cannot be said that the meaning given by PANMALAY and respondents is hereby REINSTATED. Let the case be remanded to
    CANLUBANG to the phrase "by accidental collision or overturning" the lower court for trial on the merits.
    found in the first paint of sub-paragraph (a) is untenable. Although
    the terms "accident" or "accidental" as used in insurance contracts
    have not acquired a technical meaning, the Court has on several

    You might also like