Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Del Rosario Vs Equitable, Inc and Casualty Co., Inc - G.R. No. L-16215 June 29, 1963 - Paredes, J. - by Jasper Summary: Notes

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the sole heir of the insured was entitled to P3,000 under the personal accident policy. The policy issued by the defendant insurance company was ambiguous as to the specific payout for death by drowning. The court held that any ambiguity in an insurance policy must be interpreted against the insurer. As the policy did not clearly state the payment for drowning, the ambiguity was resolved in favor of the insured's heir, entitling them to the maximum payout of P3,000.

    Copyright:

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

    Del Rosario Vs Equitable, Inc and Casualty Co., Inc - G.R. No. L-16215 June 29, 1963 - Paredes, J. - by Jasper Summary: Notes

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    37 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the sole heir of the insured was entitled to P3,000 under the personal accident policy. The policy issued by the defendant insurance company was ambiguous as to the specific payout for death by drowning. The court held that any ambiguity in an insurance policy must be interpreted against the insurer. As the policy did not clearly state the payment for drowning, the ambiguity was resolved in favor of the insured's heir, entitling them to the maximum payout of P3,000.

    Original Title

    Del-Rosario-v-Equitable_Jasper.docx

    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 affirmed the trial court's ruling that the sole heir of the insured was entitled to P3,000 under the personal accident policy. The policy issued by the defendant insurance company was ambiguous as to the specific payout for death by drowning. The court held that any ambiguity in an insurance policy must be interpreted against the insurer. As the policy did not clearly state the payment for drowning, the ambiguity was resolved in favor of the insured's heir, entitling them to the maximum payout of P3,000.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views1 page

    Del Rosario Vs Equitable, Inc and Casualty Co., Inc - G.R. No. L-16215 June 29, 1963 - Paredes, J. - by Jasper Summary: Notes

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the sole heir of the insured was entitled to P3,000 under the personal accident policy. The policy issued by the defendant insurance company was ambiguous as to the specific payout for death by drowning. The court held that any ambiguity in an insurance policy must be interpreted against the insurer. As the policy did not clearly state the payment for drowning, the ambiguity was resolved in favor of the insured's heir, entitling them to the maximum payout of P3,000.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Del Rosario vs Equitable, Inc and Casualty Co., Inc | G.R. No.

    Notes
    L-16215 June 29, 1963 | Paredes, J. | by Jasper Part I. Indemnity For Death

    Summary: If the insured sustains any bodily injury which is effected


    Respondent Equitable issued a personal accident policy to solely through violent, external, visible and accidental
    the son of the petitioner, binding itself to pay P1,000 to means, and which shall result, independently of all other
    P3,000 in the case of death. The insured died due to causes and within sixty (60) days from the occurrence
    drowning. There was ambiguity in how much the heir was thereof, in the Death of the Insured, the Company shall pay
    entitled to because the part of the policy covering death by the amount set opposite such injury:
    drowning did not specifically mention the amount the heir Section 1. Injury sustained other than those specified below
    would be entitled to. unless excepted hereinafter . . . . . . . . P1,000.00

    Doctrine: Section 2. Injury sustained by the wrecking or disablement


    Where there is an ambiguity with respect to the terms and of a railroad passenger car or street railway car in or on
    conditions of the policy, the same will be resolved against which the Insured is travelling as a farepaying passenger. . . .
    the one responsible thereof. . . . P1,500.00

    FACTS: Section 3. Injury sustained by the burning of a church,


    ● Feb 7, 1957: Equitable Insurance and Casualty Co, theatre, public library or municipal administration building
    Inc issued Personal Accident policy to Francisco del while the Insured is therein at the commencement of the
    Rosario binding itself to pay P1,000 to P3,000 as fire. . . . . . . . P2,000.00
    indemnity for the death of the insured. Section 4. Injury sustained by the wrecking or disablement
    ● Feb 24, 1957: The insured del Rosario and his of a regular passenger elevator car in which the Insured is
    beneficiary were forced to jump off a burning being conveyed as a passenger (Elevator in mines excluded)
    motor launch “Islama” and drowned in the waters . . . . . P2,500.00
    of Jolo.
    ● The father of del Rosario, as the sole heir, filed a Section 5. Injury sustained by a stroke of lightning or by a
    claim for payment with defendant company. cyclone. . . . . . . . P3,000.00
    Company paid him P1000. He received it, but
    Part VI. Exceptions
    through counsel, said that the amount was
    incorrect, as it should have been P1500, and in a This policy shall not cover disappearance of the Insured nor
    subsequent letter claimed that it should have been shall it cover Death, Disability, Hospital fees, or Loss of Time,
    P3000. Defendant company refused to pay more caused to the insured:
    than P1000.
    ● TC ruled that since drowning was not part of Part I . . . (h) By drowning except as a consequence of the wrecking
    of the policy (death by bodily injury) and that it was or disablement in the Philippine waters of a passenger steam
    Part VI which covered death by drowning, Part VI or motor vessel in which the Insured is travelling as a
    must be followed. However since Part VI did not farepaying passenger; . . . .
    explicitly state the specific amount for death thru
    A rider to the Policy contained the following:
    drowning, the ambiguity must be interpreted in
    favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer IV. DROWNING
    so as to allow a greater indemnity, entitling the
    plaintiff to recover P3000. It is hereby declared and agreed that exemption clause
    ● Company appealed to CA on 3 counts before it Letter (h) embodied in PART VI of the policy is hereby waived
    reached the SC by the company, and to form a part of the provision covered
    ISSUES/RATIO: by the policy.
    1. W/N sole heir is entitled to recover P 3,000 - Yes
    ● Where there is an ambiguity with respect to the
    terms and conditions of the policy, the same will be
    resolved against the one responsible thereof.
    ● It should be recalled in this connection, that
    generally, the insured, has little, if any, participation
    in the preparation of the policy, together with the
    drafting of its terms and Conditions.
    ● The interpretation of obscure stipulations in a
    contract should not favor the party who cause the
    obscurity (Art. 1377, N.C.C.), which, in the case at
    bar, is the insurance company.
    RULING: Judgement Affirmed

    You might also like