Francis Geronimo 3CLM

Violeta Lalican, Petitioner vs. The Insular Life Assurance Company Limited, as represented by the president Vicente Avilon G.R. No. 183516 August 25, 2009 Facts: Eulogio Lalican is an insurance holder with Insular Life. It contains a 20 Year Endowment Variable Income Package Flexi Plan worth PhP 500,000, with two riders valued at PhP 500,000 each. Violeta Lalican is the beneficiary. According to the policy contract, there was a grace period of 31 days for the payment of each premium subsequent to the first. If any premium was not paid on or before the due date, the policy would be in default, and if the premium remained unpaid until the grace period, the policy would automatically lapse and become void. After paying some of the premium dues, he failed to a premium due even after the lapse of the grace period. Therefore the policy issued to him, therefore, lapse and become void. Eulogio submitted to the District office of Insular Life in Cabanatuan through the agent of Insular Life. After he applied for reinstatement, Insular life notified him that his application cannot be processed and was advised to apply for a new one. Eulogio , likewise, applied for a second reinstatement of his policy, including the amount representing the payments for the premium dues. On the same day of his application, Eugolio died of cardio-respiratory arrest. Without knowing of Eulogios death, the agent forwarded the application to Insular Life Regional Office. The company no longer acted upon Eulogios Application for Reinstatement, as the former was informed of the death. Violeta filed with Insular Life a claim for payment of the full proceeds of the policy. Insular denied the claim. Issue: Whether or not there is a validly executed reinstatement application. Ruling: Both the Policy Contract and Reinstatement Application provide for the conditions of reinstatement of a lapse policy. Eulogios death rendered impossible full compliance with the conditions of reinstatement of his insurance policy. His insurance policy could only be considered reinstated after the application for reinstatement had been processed and approved by Insular Life during Eulogios lifetime and good health. Moreover, the agent of the insurance company does not have the authority to approve the application. The language of the Policy Contract and Application for Reinstatement were written in clear language. A construction of in

favour of the accused is not called for, as there is no ambiguity in the provisions in the first place. ARMANDO GEAGONIA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents. February 6, 1995 G.R. No. 114427 Facts: Armando Geagonia, owner of Norman's Mart located in a public market. For P100,000.00, he got a fire insurance policy from Country Bankers Insurance Corporation covering the following: Stock-in-trade consisting principally of dry goods such as RTW's for men and women wear and other usual to assured's business." Geagonia acknowledged in the policy under the subheading entitled CO-INSURANCE that Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. was the co-insurer for P50,000.00. On May 1990, fire of accidental origin broke out at around 7:30 p.m. at the public market of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. Geagonia's insured stocks-in-trade were completely destroyed provoking him to file with Country Bankers a claim under the policy. Country Bankers denied the claim because it found that at the time of the loss Geagonia's stocks-in-trade were likewise covered by other fire insurance policies. Geagonia then filed a complaint against Country Bankers with the Insurance Commission for the recovery of P100,000.00 and for attorney's fees and costs of litigation. He attached a letter asking for reconsideration of the denial. He admitted in the said letter that at the time he obtained Country Bankers's fire insurance policy he knew that the two policies issued by the PFIC were already in existence; however, he had no knowledge of the provision in Country Bankers' policy requiring him to inform it of the prior policies. Issue: 1. Whether or not the non-disclosure of other insurance policies violate condition 3 of the policy. Ruling: In order to constitute a violation, the other insurance must be upon the same subject matter, the same interest therein, and the same risk. Condition 3 of Country Bankers's Policy is a condition which is not forbidden by law. Its incorporation in the policy is allowed by Section 75 of the Insurance Code, such a condition is a provision which invariably appears in fire insurance policies and is intended to prevent an increase in the moral hazard. This shall only apply to those with double insurance. A double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect of the same subject and interest. Since the insurable interests of a mortgagor and a mortgagee on the mortgaged property are distinct and separate; the two policies of the PFIC do not cover the same interest as that covered by the policy of Country Bankers, no double insurance exists. The non-disclosure then of the former policies was not fatal to Geagonia's right to recover on Country Bankers' policy.