Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 781 views

    Alpha Insurance Vs Castor

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Arsenia Sonia Castor, in her insurance claim against Alpha Insurance and Surety Co. The respondent's vehicle was insured by the petitioner for P630K in case of loss or damage. The vehicle was stolen after the respondent instructed her driver to take it for a tune-up. The petitioner denied the claim, arguing the theft fell under the policy exception for "malicious damage caused by...a person in the insured's service." However, the Court found the exception referred only to damage, not loss, and the policy covered theft. As the policy did not specify who could commit the theft, it was covered even if by the driver.

    Copyright:

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

    Alpha Insurance Vs Castor

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    781 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Arsenia Sonia Castor, in her insurance claim against Alpha Insurance and Surety Co. The respondent's vehicle was insured by the petitioner for P630K in case of loss or damage. The vehicle was stolen after the respondent instructed her driver to take it for a tune-up. The petitioner denied the claim, arguing the theft fell under the policy exception for "malicious damage caused by...a person in the insured's service." However, the Court found the exception referred only to damage, not loss, and the policy covered theft. As the policy did not specify who could commit the theft, it was covered even if by the driver.

    Original Description:

    Alpha Insurance vs Castor

    Original Title

    Alpha Insurance vs Castor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Arsenia Sonia Castor, in her insurance claim against Alpha Insurance and Surety Co. The respondent's vehicle was insured by the petitioner for P630K in case of loss or damage. The vehicle was stolen after the respondent instructed her driver to take it for a tune-up. The petitioner denied the claim, arguing the theft fell under the policy exception for "malicious damage caused by...a person in the insured's service." However, the Court found the exception referred only to damage, not loss, and the policy covered theft. As the policy did not specify who could commit the theft, it was covered even if by the driver.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    781 views3 pages

    Alpha Insurance Vs Castor

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Arsenia Sonia Castor, in her insurance claim against Alpha Insurance and Surety Co. The respondent's vehicle was insured by the petitioner for P630K in case of loss or damage. The vehicle was stolen after the respondent instructed her driver to take it for a tune-up. The petitioner denied the claim, arguing the theft fell under the policy exception for "malicious damage caused by...a person in the insured's service." However, the Court found the exception referred only to damage, not loss, and the policy covered theft. As the policy did not specify who could commit the theft, it was covered even if by the driver.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    ALPHA INSURANCE AND SURETY CO.

    vs ARSENIA SONIA CASTOR


    G.R. No. 198174
    September 2, 2013
    FACTS: On February 21, 2007, respondent entered into a contract of insurance with petitioner, involving
    her motor vehicle, a Toyota Revo. The contract of insurance obligates the petitioner to pay the
    respondent the amount of P630K in case of loss or damage to said vehicle during the period covered.
    Respondent instructed her driver to bring the above-described vehicle to a nearby auto-shop for a tuneup. However, Jose Lanuza no longer returned the motor vehicle to respondent. Respondent promptly
    reported the incident to the police and concomitantly notified petitioner of the said loss and demanded
    payment of the insurance proceeds.
    Petitioner denied the insurance claim of respondent, stating that on the provision of the Policy, the
    company shall not be liable for Any malicious damage caused by the Insured, any member of his family
    or by "A PERSON IN THE INSUREDS SERVICE.
    Respondent argued that the exception refers to damage of the motor vehicle and not to its loss.
    However, petitioners denial of respondents insured claim remains firm.
    Respondent filed a claim for sum of money and damages with the RTC. RTC rendered a decision in favor
    of respondent, CA affirmed.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the loss of respondents vehicle is excluded under the insurance policy.
    RULING: No. SC did not agree with petitioners argument that the word "damage," under paragraph 4 of
    "Exceptions to Section III," means loss due to injury or harm to person, property or reputation, and
    should be construed to cover malicious "loss" as in "theft", thus being exempt from the policy.
    Based on the evidence as can be seen in the said policy, the insurance company, subject to the limits of
    liability, is obligated to indemnify the insured against theft. Said provision does not qualify as to who
    would commit the theft. Thus, even if the same is committed by the driver of the insured, there being
    no categorical declaration of exception, the same must be covered.
    Moreover, contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and
    meaning of the terms which the parties themselves have used. If such terms are clear and unambiguous,
    they must be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.8 Accordingly, in
    interpreting the exclusions in an insurance contract, the terms used specifying the excluded classes
    therein are to be given their meaning as understood in common speech.
    "malicious damage," as provided for in the subject policy as one of the exceptions from coverage, is the
    damage that is the direct result from the deliberate or willful act of the insured, members of his family,
    and any person in the insureds service, whose clear plan or purpose was to cause damage to the
    insured vehicle for purposes of defrauding the insurer.
    However, when the terms of the insurance policy are ambiguous, equivocal or uncertain, such that the
    parties themselves disagree about the meaning of particular provisions, the policy will be construed by
    the courts liberally in favor of the assured and strictly against the insurer.
    Lastly, a contract of insurance is a contract of adhesion. So, 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.

    You might also like