G.R. No. L-67835 October 12, 1987
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. (MICO), petitioner, vs. GREGORIA CRUZ ARNALDO, in her capacity as
the INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, and CORONACION PINCA, respondents.
FACTS:
On June 7, 1981, the petitioner (hereinafter called (MICO) issued to the private respondent, Coronacion Pinca, Fire Insurance Policy No. F-001-17212 on her property for the amount of P14,000.00 effective July 22, 1981, until July 22, 1982.
On October 15,1981, MICO allegedly cancelled the policy for non-payment, of the premium and sent the corresponding notice to Pinca.
On December 24, 1981, payment of the premium for Pinca was received by Domingo Adora, agent of MICO. On January 15, 1982, Adora remitted this payment to MICO, together with other payments. On January 18, 1982, Pinca's property was completely burned.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Insurance Commission: granted claim for compensation for burned property.
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. (MICO), petitioner, vs. GREGORIA CRUZ ARNALDO, in her capacity as
the INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, and CORONACION PINCA, respondents.
FACTS:
On June 7, 1981, the petitioner (hereinafter called (MICO) issued to the private respondent, Coronacion Pinca, Fire Insurance Policy No. F-001-17212 on her property for the amount of P14,000.00 effective July 22, 1981, until July 22, 1982.
On October 15,1981, MICO allegedly cancelled the policy for non-payment, of the premium and sent the corresponding notice to Pinca.
On December 24, 1981, payment of the premium for Pinca was received by Domingo Adora, agent of MICO. On January 15, 1982, Adora remitted this payment to MICO, together with other payments. On January 18, 1982, Pinca's property was completely burned.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Insurance Commission: granted claim for compensation for burned property.
ISSUE:
Whether there was a valid insurance contract at the time of the loss.
RULING:
Yes.
A valid cancellation must, therefore, require concurrence of the following conditions:
(1) There must be prior notice of cancellation to the insured;
(2) The notice must be based on the occurrence, after the effective date of the policy, of one or more of the grounds mentioned;
(3) The notice must be
(a) in writing,
(b) mailed, or delivered to the named insured,
(c) at the address shown in the policy;
(4) It must state
(a) which of the grounds mentioned in Section 64 is relied upon and
(b) that upon written request of the insured, the insurer will furnish the facts on which the cancellation is based.
MICO's claims it cancelled the policy in question on October 15, 1981, for non-payment of premium. To support this assertion, it presented one of its employees, who testified that "the original of the endorsement and credit memo" —presumably meaning the alleged cancellation — "were sent the assured by mail through our mailing section" However, there is no proof that the notice, assuming it complied with the other requisites mentioned above, was actually mailed to and received by Pinca.
We also look askance at the alleged cancellation, of which the insured and MICO's agent himself had no knowledge, and the curious fact that although Pinca's payment was remitted to MICO's by its agent on January 15, 1982, MICO sought to return it to Adora only on February 5, 1982, after it presumably had learned of the occurrence of the loss insured against on January 18, 1982. These circumstances make the motives of the petitioner highly suspect, to say the least, and cast serious doubts upon its candor and bona fides.
Whether there was a valid insurance contract at the time of the loss.
RULING:
Yes.
A valid cancellation must, therefore, require concurrence of the following conditions:
(1) There must be prior notice of cancellation to the insured;
(2) The notice must be based on the occurrence, after the effective date of the policy, of one or more of the grounds mentioned;
(3) The notice must be
(a) in writing,
(b) mailed, or delivered to the named insured,
(c) at the address shown in the policy;
(4) It must state
(a) which of the grounds mentioned in Section 64 is relied upon and
(b) that upon written request of the insured, the insurer will furnish the facts on which the cancellation is based.
MICO's claims it cancelled the policy in question on October 15, 1981, for non-payment of premium. To support this assertion, it presented one of its employees, who testified that "the original of the endorsement and credit memo" —presumably meaning the alleged cancellation — "were sent the assured by mail through our mailing section" However, there is no proof that the notice, assuming it complied with the other requisites mentioned above, was actually mailed to and received by Pinca.
We also look askance at the alleged cancellation, of which the insured and MICO's agent himself had no knowledge, and the curious fact that although Pinca's payment was remitted to MICO's by its agent on January 15, 1982, MICO sought to return it to Adora only on February 5, 1982, after it presumably had learned of the occurrence of the loss insured against on January 18, 1982. These circumstances make the motives of the petitioner highly suspect, to say the least, and cast serious doubts upon its candor and bona fides.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment