Scribd
Upload
607 views5 pages

Liability in Insurance Claims Explained

The Supreme Court granted the petition of Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp. seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's ruling. The trial court and Court of Appeals incorrectly held the insurance company solidarily liable with the owner and driver for damages arising from a vehicular accident. However, the Supreme Court found there was no evidence of a third-party liability insurance contract, which is required to directly sue an insurer. Even if such a contract existed, the plaintiff's claim was time-barred under the Insurance Code.

Uploaded by

Happy Malacas Aragon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
607 views5 pages

Liability in Insurance Claims Explained

The Supreme Court granted the petition of Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp. seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's ruling. The trial court and Court of Appeals incorrectly held the insurance company solidarily liable with the owner and driver for damages arising from a vehicular accident. However, the Supreme Court found there was no evidence of a third-party liability insurance contract, which is required to directly sue an insurer. Even if such a contract existed, the plaintiff's claim was time-barred under the Insurance Code.

Uploaded by

Happy Malacas Aragon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v.

CA (MENDOZA) 272 SCRA


536HERMOSISIMA, JR; May 22, 1997
NATURE
The petition herein seeks the review and reversal of the decision of respondent Court of Appeals
affirmingin toto the judgment of the Regional Trial Court in
anaction for damages filed by priva t e respon dent Vicente Mendoza, Jr. as heir of his
mother who waskilled in a vehicular accident.
FACTS
-an old lady was hit by a taxicab. The taxicab waslater identified and a case was filed against the
driverand owner. Later, an amendment was filed to includethe insurance company. RTC and CA
ordered
that theowner, driver as well as the insurance company beheld solidarily liable.
ISSUE
WON RTC and CA erred
HELD
YES- Where the contract provides for indemnity againstliability to third persons, then third
persons to
whomthe insured is liable can sue the insurer. Where
thecontract is for indemnit y a gainst actual loss orpayment, then third persons cannot
proceed against the insurer, the contract being solely to reimbursethe insured for liability
actually discharged by himthru payment to third persons, said third persons' recourse being
thus limited to the insured alone. Butin the case at bar,
there was no contract [Link] then was the basis of the RTC and the CAto say that the
insurance contract was a third-party liability insurance policy?
Consequently, thetrial court was confused as it did not distinguishbetween the private
respondent's cause of actionagainst the owner and the driver of the Lady
Lovetaxicab and his cause of action against [Link] former is based on torts and quasidelicts whilethe latter is based on contract.- Even assuming arguendo that there was such
acontract, private respondent's cause of action cannot prevail because he
failed to file the writtenclaim mandated by the Insurance Code (beforeit was amended-action

must be brought withinsix months from date of the accident (this


iswhats applicable here)
; a f ter amendmen t - "action or suit for recovery of damage due to loss orinjury must be
brought
in proper cases, with theCommissioner or the Courts within one year fromdenial of the claim,
otherwise the claimant's right of action shall prescribe" )
.
He is deemed, under thislegal provision, to have waived his rights as againstpetitioner-insurer.
Disposition:
petition granted

RECOMMENDED

Sun Insurance vs CA
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 89741 March 13,
1991 SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and

Insurance PHILAMCARE vs CA Digest


PHILAMCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JULITA TRINOS G.R. No. 125678
March 18, 2002 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Facts:ErnaniTrinos, deceased husband of JulitaTrinos,

1 Pioneer Insurance vs. CA

You might also like