Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Alpha Insurance Vs Castor

    Uploaded by

    kddc0606
    147 views2 pages
    Alpha Insurance denied Castor's insurance claim for the loss of her vehicle, which was stolen while in the possession of her driver. Alpha argued they were not liable under an exception in the policy for malicious damage caused by someone in the insured's service. However, the court ruled that the exception referred only to malicious damage or injury, not loss of the vehicle. The court found in favor of Castor, as insurance contracts must be construed liberally in favor of the insured to protect their interests.

    Original Description:

    Merc 2015

    Original Title

    Alpha Insurance vs Castor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Alpha Insurance denied Castor's insurance claim for the loss of her vehicle, which was stolen while in the possession of her driver. Alpha argued they were not liable under an exception in the policy for malicious damage caused by someone in the insured's service. However, the court ruled that the exception referred only to malicious damage or injury, not loss of the vehicle. The court found in favor of Castor, as insurance contracts must be construed liberally in favor of the insured to protect their interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    147 views2 pages

    Alpha Insurance Vs Castor

    Uploaded by

    kddc0606
    Alpha Insurance denied Castor's insurance claim for the loss of her vehicle, which was stolen while in the possession of her driver. Alpha argued they were not liable under an exception in the policy for malicious damage caused by someone in the insured's service. However, the court ruled that the exception referred only to malicious damage or injury, not loss of the vehicle. The court found in favor of Castor, as insurance contracts must be construed liberally in favor of the insured to protect their interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    ALPHA INSURANCE AND SURETY CO. vs.

    ARSENIA SONIA CASTOR


    July 2, 2014 Leave a comment
    G.R. No. 198174, September 2, 2013 (PERALTA, J.)
    FACTS:
    Arsenia Sonia Castor (Castor) obtained a Motor Car Policy for her
    Toyota Revo DLX DSL with Alpha Insurance and Surety Co (Alpha). The
    contract of insurance obligates the petitioner to pay the respondent
    the amount of P630,000 in case of loss or damage to said vehicle
    during the period covered.
    On April 16, 2007, respondent instructed her driver, Jose Joel Salazar
    Lanuza to bring the vehicle to nearby auto-shop for a tune up.
    However, Lanuza no longer returned the motor vehicle and despite
    diligent efforts to locate the same, said efforts proved futile.
    Resultantly, respondent promptly reported the incident to the police
    and concomitantly notified petitioner of the said loss and demanded
    payment of the insurance proceeds.
    Alpha, however, denied the demand of Castor claiming that they are
    not liable since the culprit who stole the vehicle is employed with
    Castor. Under the Exceptions to Section III of the Policy, the Company
    shall not be liable for (4) any malicious damage caused by the insured,
    any member of his family or by A PERSON IN THE INSUREDS
    SERVICE.
    Castor filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with Damages against Alpha
    before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The trial court rendered
    its decision in favor of Castor which decision is affirmed in toto by the
    Court of Appeals. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the loss of respondents vehicle is excluded under the
    insurance policy

    HELD:
    NO. The words loss and damage mean different things in common
    ordinary usage. The word loss refers to the act or fact of losing, or
    failure to keep possession, while the word damage means
    deterioration or injury to property. Therefore, petitioner cannot exclude
    the loss of Castors vehicle under the insurance policy under paragraph
    4 of Exceptions to Section III, since the same refers only to
    malicious damage, or more specifically, injury to the motor vehicle
    caused by a person under the insureds service. Paragraph 4 clearly
    does not contemplate loss of property.
    A contract of insurance is a contract of adhesion. So, when the terms of
    the insurance contract contain limitations on liability, courts should
    construe them in such a way as to preclude the insurer from noncompliance with his obligation. Thus, in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park
    Corporation vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, this Court
    ruled that it must be remembered that an insurance contract is a
    contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the
    insured and strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the
    latters interest.

    You might also like