Insurance Case Digest: Lopez v. Del Rosario and Quiogue (1922)

G.R. No. L-19189   November 27, 1922

Lessons Applicable: Carrier or Depositary (Insurance)

Laws Applicable: 

FACTS:

• Benita Quiogue de V. del Rosario (Mrs. del Rosario), owner of a bonded warehouse where Froilan Lopez, holder or 14 waehouse receipts and Elias Zamora had their copra deposited
• The warehouse recipts states an insurance of 1% their declared value which can be increase or decrease by giving 1 month's notice in writing
• Lopez paid the insurance to May 18, 1920, but not thereafter
• June 6, 1920: the warehouse was destroyed by fire.  Only copra worth P49,985 was salvaged.  At that time Lopez was still liable for the storage and insurance of P315.90
• Mrs. Del Rosario submitted the insurance with the arbitrators and seems to have satisfied all of the persons who had copra stored in her warehouse, including the stockholders in the Compañia Coprera de Tayabas (whose stock she took over), with the exception of Froilan Lopez
• Ineffectual attempts by Mrs. Del Rosario to effect a compromise with Lopez first for P71,994, later raised to P72,724, and finally reduced to P17,000, were made. But Lopez stubbornly contended, or, at least, his attorney contended for him, that he should receive not a centavo less than P88,595.43 (from originally P107,990.40)

ISSUE: W/N Mrs. Del Rosario should be held liable to Lopez even if he has not paid the insurance at the time of the fire

HELD: YES.  entitled to P88,595.43 minus P7,185.88, his share of the expenses, minus P315.90, due for insurance and storage, or approximately a net amount of P81,093.65, with legal interest

Insurance Case Digest: Tanco Jr. v. Philippine Guaranty Co. (1965)

G.R. No.L-17312           November 29, 1965

Lessons Applicable: Definition and Coverage of Casualty Insurance (Insurance)

Laws Applicable: 

FACTS:

• While Tanco's automobile was driven by his brother Manuel Tanco, who at the time didn't have a valid license since it was not renewed until the next week, had a collision with a pick-up delivery van at the southern approach of the Jones bridge
• The repairs cost P2,536.99 so he filed a claim against the insurance company which was rejected 
• He filed a claim in the Municipal Court of Manila and elevated to the Court of First Instance of Manila on Appeal which favored Tanco
• exception clause "the company shall not be liable in respect of any accident, loss, damage or liability caused, sustained or incurred ... whilst (the insured vehicle) is ... being driven by or is for the purpose of being driven by him in the charge of any person other than an Authorized Driver.
• Authorized Driver" to be the insured himself and "(b) any person driving on the Insured's order or with his permission, provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle or has been permitted and is not disqualified by order of a court of law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving such Motor Vehicle.

ISSUE: W/N the Tanco can claim because it was not covered by the exemption clause

HELD: NO. appealed from is reversed, with costs

• The exclusion clause in the contract invoked by appellant is clear. It does not refer to violations of law in general, which indeed would tend to render automobile insurance practically a sham, but to a specific situation where a person other than the insured himself, even upon his order or with his permission, drives the motor vehicle without a license or with one that has already expired. No principle of law or of public policy militates against the validity of such a provision.