Quiz 9 Questions

Question 1

Discussion:

Question 2

G.R. No. 183526
1) Did Eulogio have an insurable interest over his life when he was still alive? If there was, was there a controversy over the insurable interest of Eulogio over his own life?

Answer 2

Yes, there was insurable interest over Eulogio’s life when he was still alive. No, there was no controversy over the insurable interest over his own life. The controversy or issue was on the reinstatement of the relapsed policy.

Question 3

G.R. No. 183526
2) Why was the policy considered as lapsed even if the insurance agent had already received the premiums for reinstatement?

Answer 3

There were two (2) reasons:

Mere filing of an application cannot give absolute right over the insured.

1) Insurance agents have limited actions. They can only receive, but not process the application for reinstatement.

2) The processing of the application for reinstatement can only be done by members of the corporation.

Question 4

G.R. No. 184300
3) Was there double insurance?

Answer 4

No.

By the express provision of Section 93 of the Insurance Code, double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers
separately in respect to the same subject and interest. The requisites in order for double insurance to arise are as follows:

1. The person insured is the same;
2. Two or more insurers insuring separately;
3. There is identity of subject matter;
4. There is identity of interest insured; and
5. There is identity of the risk or peril insured against.

Wyeth’s (the customer) insurance as insured by Philippine First was for its legal and equitable interest over its goods. It is covered by the Marine Policy.

Reputable’s (the private carrier) insurance as insured by Malayan was for its insurable interest over the goods of its customer, Wyeth. It is covered by the SR Policy.

Although there was similarity in items no. 3) and 5) above, there was obvious differences in items no. 1) and 4).

Two different entities are insured with obviously two different insurable interests.

Thus, there was no double interest.

Question 5

G.R. No. 184300
4) If Reputable was a common carrier, would Malayan Insurance be still liable?

Answer 5

Generally, no. Loss due to 3rd parties is explained and covered in Article 1745(6) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

The explanation above is the reason why Malayan pushed through for the declaration of Reputable as a common carrier, so that Malayan’s liability is extinguished.

But in this instant case, Malayan is YES liable due to the specific stipulation or provision in the contract that allows the liability of Malayan.

Question 6

G.R. No. 184300
5) How much is Malayan liable and to whom?

Answer 6

Malayan is liable only up to the declared value of the contract of insurance to Reputable, the entity to whom it had an insurance.

Wyeth had no privity with Malayan, as it did not have a contractual relation with it. Wyeth only had a contractual relation with Philippine First Insurance.

Question 7

Notes:

Philippine First, the subrogee, can directly claim to Malayan. But it could not do so directly as it was not initially impleaded in the case, so Malayan had to be implicated as a defendant. It was Reputable who actually filed a 3rd Party Complaint, involving Malayan as a party to the case.