Voltaire Garcia for petitioner Mondragon.
On May 11,while it was in the custody of the Sunday Machine Works, the car was allegedly taken by six 6 persons and driven out to Montalban, Rizal.
While travelling along Mabini St. As a consequence, the gravel and sand truck veered to the right side of the pavement going south and the car veered to the right side of the pavement going north.
The driver, Benito Mabasa, and one of the passengers died and the Page 7 of 20 other four sustained physical injuries. The car, as well, suffered extensive damage. Complainant, thereafter, filed a claim for total loss with the respondent company but claim was denied.
Hence, complainant, was compelled to institute the present action. WON the Insurance Company is liable. Assuming, despite the totally inadequate evidence, that the taking was "temporary" and for a "joy ride", the Court sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person, either with the object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.
Fortune Insurance and Surety Co. While said insurance policy was in full force and effect, the insured, Carlie Surposa, died on October 18, as a result of a stab wound inflicted by one of the three 3 unidentified men. 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.
Private respondent filed a complaint with the Insurance Commission which rendered a favorable response for the respondent. The appellate court ruled likewise. Therefore, said death was committed with deliberate intent which, by the very nature of a personal accident insurance policy, cannot be indemnified.
Whether or not the insurer is liable for the payment of the insurance premiums HELD: Page 9 of 20 Yes, the insurer is still liable. Contracts of insurance are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.
Thus ambiguity in the words of an insurance contract should be interpreted in favor of its beneficiary. The terms "accident" and "accidental" as used in insurance contracts have not acquired any technical meaning, and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common acceptation.
Thus, the terms have been taken to mean that which happen by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. Where the death or injury is not the natural or probable result of the insured's voluntary act, or if something unforeseen occurs in the doing of the act which produces the injury, the resulting death is within the protection of the policies insuring against death or injury from accident.
In the case at bar, it cannot be pretended that Carlie Surposa died in the course of an assault or murder as a result of his voluntary act considering the very nature of these crimes. Neither can it be said that where was a capricious desire on the part of the accused to expose his life to danger considering that he was just going home after attending a festival.
Furthermore, the personal accident insurance policy involved herein specifically enumerated only ten 10 circumstances wherein no liability attaches to petitioner insurance company for any injury, disability or loss suffered by the insured as a result of any of the stimulated causes.
The principle of " expresso unius 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 injury, disability or loss suffered by the insured.
Thus, 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.
Sometime inRodolfo Lalog, an agent of BF, convinced him to apply for additional insurance coverage of P50, Perez accomplished the application form and passed the required medical exam. He also paid P2, to Lalog for premium.HOME Free Essays Fieldman Insurance Co.
Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest. Fieldman Insurance Co. Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest Essay. A. Pages:4 Words This is just a sample. We will write a custom essay on Fieldman Insurance Co. Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest specifically for you for only $ $/page. We will write a custom essay sample on Salita vs.
Calleja Digest specifically for you for only $ $/page.
Chavez V. Romulo Case Digest ; Law Case Digest ; Fieldman Insurance Co. Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest ; Expression Case Digest ; Cuadra v. Monfort case digest. Essay on Was the 5th Century Bce a "Golden Age" for Athens? Fieldman Insurance Co. Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest; Occupational safety and health Essay; Poetry Essay; United States Essay; Postgraduate education Essay; Cone cell Essay; Video game controversy Essay;.
Fieldman Insurance Co. Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest Essay ADDITIONAL BATCH 7 (SORRY GUYS) /FIELDMAN vs SONGCO/CBR FACTS: Federico Songco of Floridablanca, Pampanga, a man of scant education being only a first grader , owned a . Related posts: Tesco’s operations stategy Essay ; Fieldman Insurance Co.
Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest Essay ; Memo for ABC Complete Kitchens Inc Essay. The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith (uberrima fides meaning good faith, absolute and perfect candor or openness and honesty; the absence of any concealment or demotion, however slight [Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition], not for the alone but equally so for the insurer (Fieldman’s Insurance Co., Inc.
vs. Vda de Songco.
• Case:BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO  11 Ex Documents Similar To CHAy. Emergency Rule. Uploaded by. Mercy Sayen. Dangwa Transportation vs Court of Appeals. Fieldman's Insurance Co. Inc vs Vda de Songco. Uploaded by. Thirdy Demonteverde. Cases - August 25, . Fieldman Insurance Co. Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest. ADDITIONAL BATCH 7 (SORRY GUYS) /FIELDMAN vs SONGCO/CBR FACTS: Federico Songco of Floridablanca, Pampanga, a man of scant education being only a first grader , owned a private jeepney for the year On September 15, , he was induced by Fieldmen's Insurance Company Pampanga. Insurance Case Digest: Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Arnaldo () G.R. No. L October 12, Lessons Applicable: Authority to Receive Payment/Effect of Payment (Insurance).