Biagtan v. Insular Life Assurance Co., LTD., 44 SCRA 58)

Biagtan v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.
, 44 SCRA 58)
DOCTRINE: Unlike the ruling in the case of Calanoc vs. Court of Appeals, where the killing of the victim was held as accidental and thus covered
by the insurance policy, the Supreme Court held that in the instant case, the insured was killed intentionally.
The term “Intentional" as used in an accident policy excepting intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person, etc., implies the
exercise of the reasoning faculties, consciousness and volition. Where a provision of the policy excludes intentional injury, it is the intention of the
person inflicting the injury that is controlling. If the injuries suffered by the insured clearly resulted from the intentional act of a third person the
insurer is relieved from liability as stipulated.
SYNOPSIS: In a dispute over an insurance claim, the Philippine Supreme Court rules that an insurance company is not liable for an additional
accidental death benefit when the insured individual was intentionally killed by robbers, as evidenced by the manner and intent of the attack.
FACTS:
Juan S. Biagtan was insured with defendant Insular Life Assurance Company under Policy No. 398075 for the sum of P5,000.00 and, under a
supplementary contract denominated "Accidental Death Benefit Clause”, for an additional sum of P5,000.00 if "the death of the Insured
resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely through external and violent means sustained in an accident and independently of all other
causes." The clause, however, expressly provided that it would not apply where death resulted from an injury "intentionally inflicted by another
party."
On the night of May 20, 1964, or during the first hours of the following day, while the said life policy and supplementary contract were in full force
and effect, a band of robbers entered the house of the insured Juan S. Biagtan, who, unfortunately, was killed as his house was being robbed.
Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the insured, filed a claim under the policy. The insurance company paid the basic amount of P5,000 but refused to pay
the additional P5,000 under the accidental death benefit clause, on the ground that his death was the result of injuries intentionally inflicted by
third parties and was not covered.
RTC: ruled that there was no proof that the robbers intended to kill Biagtan, or just to scare him away by thrusting at him with their knives.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the wounds received by the insured at the hands of the robbers were inflicted intentionally, hence the benefit clause cannot apply
RULING:
YES. The insurance company was correct in refusing to pay the additional accidental death benefit. According to the SC, where a gang of
robbers enter a house and coming face to face with the owner, even if unexpectedly, stab him repeatedly, it is contrary to all reason and
logic to say that his injuries are not intentionally inflicted, regardless of whether they prove fatal or not.
“Intentional" as used in an accident policy excepting intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person, etc., implies the exercise of
the reasoning faculties, consciousness and volition. Where a provision of the policy excludes intentional injury, it is the intention of the person
inflicting the injury that is controlling. If the injuries suffered by the insured clearly resulted from the intentional act of a third person the
insurer is relieved from liability as stipulated.
It should be noted that the exception in the accidental benefit clause invoked by the appellant does not speak of the purpose — whether
homicidal or not — of a third party in causing the injuries, but only of the fact that such injuries have been "intentionally" inflicted — this
obviously to distinguish them from injuries which, although received at the hands of a third party, are purely accidental. This construction is
the basic idea expressed in the coverage of the clause itself, namely, that "the death of the insured resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely
through external and violent means sustained in an accident ... and independently of all other causes.
In this case, the nine wounds inflicted with bladed weapons at close range could not be considered as innocent and clearly indicated an intent to
cause harm. Five of those wounds caused the death of the insured. Whether the robbers had the intent to kill or merely to scare the victim or to ward
off any defense he might offer, it cannot be denied that the act itself of inflicting the injuries was intentional.
Under the circumstance, the insurance company was correct in refusing to pay the additional sum of P2,000.00 under the accidental death benefit
clause which expressly provided that it would not apply where death resulted from an injury "intentionally" inflicted by a third party.

Biagtan v. Insular Life Assurance Co., LTD., 44 SCRA 58)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biagtan v. Insular Life Assurance Co., LTD., 44 SCRA 58)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biagtan v. Insular Life Assurance Co., LTD., 44 SCRA 58)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biagtan v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.

You might also like