Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Firestone

    Uploaded by

    John Mark Revilla
    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid Firestone for losses valued at around 12k pesos that were allegedly caused by Jamila's security guard. Fireman's Fund sued Jamila and First Quezon City Insurance to recover the amount paid, claiming subrogation rights from Firestone. The trial court dismissed the case against Jamila, finding no consent for subrogation. The Supreme Court ruled that Firestone joined the case nominally to help Fireman's Fund recover, having tacitly assigned its right to sue Jamila. As the insurer, Fireman's Fund was entitled to recover from those responsible for the loss. Subrogation is a normal right of insurers to recover losses from negligent third parties. The trial

    Copyright:

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

    Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Firestone

    Uploaded by

    John Mark Revilla
    19 views1 page
    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid Firestone for losses valued at around 12k pesos that were allegedly caused by Jamila's security guard. Fireman's Fund sued Jamila and First Quezon City Insurance to recover the amount paid, claiming subrogation rights from Firestone. The trial court dismissed the case against Jamila, finding no consent for subrogation. The Supreme Court ruled that Firestone joined the case nominally to help Fireman's Fund recover, having tacitly assigned its right to sue Jamila. As the insurer, Fireman's Fund was entitled to recover from those responsible for the loss. Subrogation is a normal right of insurers to recover losses from negligent third parties. The trial

    Original Title

    8. Fireman’s Fund Insurance v. Firestone

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid Firestone for losses valued at around 12k pesos that were allegedly caused by Jamila's security guard. Fireman's Fund sued Jamila and First Quezon City Insurance to recover the amount paid, claiming subrogation rights from Firestone. The trial court dismissed the case against Jamila, finding no consent for subrogation. The Supreme Court ruled that Firestone joined the case nominally to help Fireman's Fund recover, having tacitly assigned its right to sue Jamila. As the insurer, Fireman's Fund was entitled to recover from those responsible for the loss. Subrogation is a normal right of insurers to recover losses from negligent third parties. The trial

    Copyright:

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

    Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Firestone

    Uploaded by

    John Mark Revilla
    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid Firestone for losses valued at around 12k pesos that were allegedly caused by Jamila's security guard. Fireman's Fund sued Jamila and First Quezon City Insurance to recover the amount paid, claiming subrogation rights from Firestone. The trial court dismissed the case against Jamila, finding no consent for subrogation. The Supreme Court ruled that Firestone joined the case nominally to help Fireman's Fund recover, having tacitly assigned its right to sue Jamila. As the insurer, Fireman's Fund was entitled to recover from those responsible for the loss. Subrogation is a normal right of insurers to recover losses from negligent third parties. The trial

    Copyright:

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

    Fireman’s Fund Insurance v.

    Firestone
    G.R. No. L-27427
    April 7, 1976

    Facts

    Jamila or the Veterans Philippine Scouts Security Agency contracted to supply


    security guards to Firestone; that Jamila assumed responsibility for the acts of its
    security guards; that First Quezon City Insurance executed a bond in the sum of P20k
    to guarantee Jamila's obligations under that contract;

    Properties of Firestone valued at almost P12k were lost allegedly due to the acts of
    its employees who connived with Jamila's security guard; that Fireman's Fund paid
    to Firestone the amount of the loss; that Fireman's Fund was subrogated to
    Firestone's right to get reimbursement from Jamila, First Quezon City Insurance
    failed to pay the amount of the loss in spite of repeated demands. Upon defendants'
    motions, the CFI dismissed the complaint as to Jamila on the ground that there was
    no allegation that it had consented to the subrogation of Fireman's Fund.

    Firestone and Fireman's Fund filed a motion for the reconsideration on the ground
    that Fireman's Fund Insurance Company was suing on the basis of legal subrogation
    whereas the lower court erroneously predicated its dismissal order on the theory that
    there was no conventional subrogation because the debtor's consent was lacking.

    Issue & Ruling

    Whether the complaint of Firestone and Fireman's Fund states a cause of action
    against Jamila.

    We hold that Firestone is really a nominal, party in this case. It had already been
    indemnified for the loss which it had sustained. Obviously, it joined as a party-
    plaintiff in order to help Fireman's Fund to recover the amount of the loss from
    Jamila and First Quezon City Insurance Co., Inc. Firestone had tacitly assigned to
    Fireman's Fund its cause of action against Jamila for breach of contract. Sufficient
    ultimate facts are alleged in the complaint to sustain that cause of action. As the
    insurer, Fireman's Fund is entitled to go after the person or entity that violated its
    contractual commitment to answer for the loss insured against.

    The trial court erred in applying to this case the rules on novation. The plaintiffs in
    alleging in their complaint that Fireman's Fund "became a party in interest in this
    case by virtue of a subrogation right given in its favor by" Firestone, were not relying
    on the novation by change of creditors as contemplated in articles 1291 and 1300 to
    1303 of the Civil Code but rather on article 2207.

    Subrogation is a normal incident of indemnity insurance. Upon payment of the loss,


    the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action which the
    insured may have against the third person whose. negligence or wrongful act caused
    the loss. The right of subrogation is of the highest equity. The loss in the first instance
    is that of the insured but after reimbursement or compensation, it becomes the loss
    of the insurer.

    You might also like