Finman Gen, Ass. Corp. vs Court of Appeals and Surposa, GR No. 100970, September 02, 1992
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
It
appears on record that on October 22, 1986, deceased, Carlie Surposa was
insured with petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation under Finman
General Teachers Protection Plan Master Policy No. 2005 and Individual Policy
No. 08924 with his parents, spouses Julia and Carlos Surposa, and brothers
Christopher, Charles, Chester and Clifton, all surnamed, Surposa, as
beneficiaries.
While
said insurance policy was in full force and effect, the insured, Carlie
Surposa, died on October 18, 1988 as a result of a stab wound inflicted by one
of the three (3) unidentified men without provocation and warning on the part
of the former as he and his cousin, Winston Surposa, were waiting for a ride on
their way home along Rizal-Locsin Streets, Bacolod City after attending the
celebration of the "Maskarra Annual Festival."
Thereafter,
private respondent and the other beneficiaries of said insurance policy filed a
written notice of claim with the petitioner insurance company which denied said
claim contending that murder and assault are not within the scope of the
coverage of the insurance policy.
ISSUE
Whether
or not the said death was committed with deliberate intent which, by the very
nature of a personal accident insurance policy, cannot be indemnified.
RULING
No.
Under
the law (Art 1377, NCC), the interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in
a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.
In
this case, the insurance company is liable to pay respondent and other
beneficiaries the sum of P15,000 representing the proceeds of the policy with
interest. The principle of expresso union est exclusio alterius—the mention of
one thing implies the exclusion of another thing—is, therefore, applicable in
the instant case since murder and assault, not having been expressly included
in the enumeration of the circumstances that would negate liability in said insurance
policy, cannot be considered by implication to discharge the petitioner
insurance company from liability for any inquiry, disability or loss suffered
by insured. The failure of the petitioner insurance company to include death
resulting from murder or assault among the prohibited risks leads inevitably to
the conclusion that it did not intend to limit or exempt itself from liability
for such death. Moreover, it is well-settled that contracts of insurance are to
be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the
insurer. Ambiguity in the words of an insurance contract should be interpreted
in favor of its beneficiary.
No comments:
Post a Comment