Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The facts found by the trial court, which are not disputed in this appeal, are as follows: ... The loss of a hand shall mean the loss by amputation through the bones of the wrist....
WHERE THERE IS NO VISION, THE PEOPLE PERISH. TY v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY Insurance/Interpretation
Page |2
Defendants rejected plaintiff's claim for indemnity for the reason that there being no severance of
amputation of the left hand, the disability suffered by him was not covered by his policy. Hence, plaintiff
sued the defendants in the Municipal Court of this City, and from the decision of said Court dismissing his
complaints, plaintiff appealed to this Court. (Decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, pp. 223-
226, Records).
In view of its finding, the court absolved the defendants from the complaints. Hence this appeal.
The main contention of appellant in these cases is that in order that he may recover on the insurance policies issued
him for the loss of his left hand, it is not necessary that there should be an amputation thereof, but that it is sufficient if
the injuries prevent him from performing his work or labor necessary in the pursuance of his occupation or business.
Authorities are cited to the effect that "total disability" in relation to one's occupation means that the condition of the
insurance is such that common prudence requires him to desist from transacting his business or renders him
incapable of working. (46 C.J.S., 970). It is also argued that obscure words or stipulations should be interpreted
against the person who caused the obscurity, and the ones which caused the obscurity in the cases at bar are the
defendant insurance companies.
While we sympathize with the plaintiff or his employer, for whose benefit the policies were issued, we can not go
beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all of which define partial disability as loss of either
hand by amputation through the bones of the wrist." There was no such amputation in the case at bar. All that was
found by the trial court, which is not disputed on appeal, was that the physical injuries "caused temporary total
disability of plaintiff's left hand." Note that the disability of plaintiff's hand was merely temporary, having been caused
by fracture of the index, the middle and the fourth fingers of the left hand.
We might add that the agreement contained in the insurance policies is the law between the parties. As the terms of
the policies are clear, express and specific that only amputation of the left hand should be considered as a loss
thereof, an interpretation that would include the mere fracture or other temporary disability not covered by the policies
would certainly be unwarranted.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.