Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 625 views

    Arce Vs Capital Insurance

    Uploaded by

    thornapple25
    1. The petitioner owned a home insured by the respondent insurance company. The insurance policy required payment of a renewal premium by January 4, 1966, but the premium was not paid. 2. In January 1966, a fire ravaged the petitioner's home. The petitioner filed a claim, but the respondent denied coverage as the renewal premium had not been paid. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that timely payment of premiums is essential for a valid insurance policy based on the Insurance Act and the policy terms. As the premium was not paid by the due date, the respondent was not obligated to provide coverage for the fire.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arce Vs Capital Insurance

    Uploaded by

    thornapple25
    625 views2 pages
    1. The petitioner owned a home insured by the respondent insurance company. The insurance policy required payment of a renewal premium by January 4, 1966, but the premium was not paid. 2. In January 1966, a fire ravaged the petitioner's home. The petitioner filed a claim, but the respondent denied coverage as the renewal premium had not been paid. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that timely payment of premiums is essential for a valid insurance policy based on the Insurance Act and the policy terms. As the premium was not paid by the due date, the respondent was not obligated to provide coverage for the fire.

    Original Description:

    Arce

    Original Title

    Arce vs Capital Insurance

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The petitioner owned a home insured by the respondent insurance company. The insurance policy required payment of a renewal premium by January 4, 1966, but the premium was not paid. 2. In January 1966, a fire ravaged the petitioner's home. The petitioner filed a claim, but the respondent denied coverage as the renewal premium had not been paid. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that timely payment of premiums is essential for a valid insurance policy based on the Insurance Act and the policy terms. As the premium was not paid by the due date, the respondent was not obligated to provide coverage for the fire.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    625 views2 pages

    Arce Vs Capital Insurance

    Uploaded by

    thornapple25
    1. The petitioner owned a home insured by the respondent insurance company. The insurance policy required payment of a renewal premium by January 4, 1966, but the premium was not paid. 2. In January 1966, a fire ravaged the petitioner's home. The petitioner filed a claim, but the respondent denied coverage as the renewal premium had not been paid. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that timely payment of premiums is essential for a valid insurance policy based on the Insurance Act and the policy terms. As the premium was not paid by the due date, the respondent was not obligated to provide coverage for the fire.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    77.

    Arce vs Capital Insurance


    G.R. No. L-28501, September 30,
    1982
    Topic: Premium
    Ponente: Abad Santos, J.
    Author:Jimi Arranchado
    Link:
    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/sep1982/gr_l_28501_1982.html
    FACTS:
    1. The petitioner, the insured, was the owner of a residential house inTondo, Manila, which had been
    insured with the Capital insurance since 1961under Fire Policy No. 24204.
    2. On November 27, 1965, the COMPANY sent to the petitioner Renewal Certificate No. 47302 to cover
    the period December 5, 1965 to December 5, 1966. The respondent also requested payment of the
    corresponding premium in the amount of P38.10.
    3. Anticipating that the premium could not be paid on time, the petitioner, thru his wife, promised to pay
    it on January 4, 1966. The respondent accepted the promise but the premium was not paid on January 4,
    1966.
    4. When the petitioners house was ravaged with fire, the petitioners wife presented a claim for
    indemnity to the respondent. She was told that no indemnity was due because the premium on the
    policy was not paid.
    5. Nonetheless the respondent tendered a check forP300.00 as financial aid which was received by the
    petiotioners daughter. The respondent reiterated that the check was given "not as an obligation, but as
    a concession" because the renewal premium had not been paid. The petitioner cashed the check but
    then sued the respondent on the policy.
    6. CFI: Capital Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. was ordered to pay Pedro Arce the proceeds of a fire
    insurance policy.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to claim from their policy despite non-payment of their
    premium.
    HELD:

    No.

    RATIO:

    1. It is obvious from both the Insurance Act, as amended, and the stipulation of the parties that time is of
    the essence in respect of the payment of the insurance premium so that if it is not paid the contract does
    not take effect unless there is still another stipulation to the contrary. In the instant case, the petitioner
    was given a grace period to pay the premium but the period having expired with no payment made; he
    cannot insist that the respondent is nonetheless obligated to him.
    2. Moreover, the parties in this case had stipulated:

    [T]his insurance will be deemed valid and binding upon the respondent (Capital Assurance) only
    when the premium and documentary stamps therefor have actually been paid in full and duly
    acknowledged in an official receipt signed by an authorized official/representative of the respondent
    (Capital Assurance).
    DOCTRINE

    An insurer is entitled to payment of premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the perils insured
    against, unless there is clear agreement to grant credit extension for the premium due. No policy issued by an
    insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid.

    You might also like