100%(1)Il 100% ha trovato utile questo documento (1 voto)
87 visualizzazioni2 pagine
The document summarizes a court case between Gulf Resorts, Inc. and Phil Charter Insurance Corporation regarding an insurance claim for property damage caused by an earthquake. Gulf Resorts owned a resort in La Union that was insured by Phil Charter. After an earthquake damaged properties at the resort, Gulf Resorts filed a claim seeking coverage for all damaged properties under its earthquake endorsement. However, Phil Charter denied most of the claim, arguing the endorsement only covered Gulf Resorts' two swimming pools. The court found that when all provisions and riders were interpreted together, they showed the parties' intent was to only extend earthquake coverage to the two swimming pools based on the premium paid.
The document summarizes a court case between Gulf Resorts, Inc. and Phil Charter Insurance Corporation regarding an insurance claim for property damage caused by an earthquake. Gulf Resorts owned a resort in La Union that was insured by Phil Charter. After an earthquake damaged properties at the resort, Gulf Resorts filed a claim seeking coverage for all damaged properties under its earthquake endorsement. However, Phil Charter denied most of the claim, arguing the endorsement only covered Gulf Resorts' two swimming pools. The court found that when all provisions and riders were interpreted together, they showed the parties' intent was to only extend earthquake coverage to the two swimming pools based on the premium paid.
The document summarizes a court case between Gulf Resorts, Inc. and Phil Charter Insurance Corporation regarding an insurance claim for property damage caused by an earthquake. Gulf Resorts owned a resort in La Union that was insured by Phil Charter. After an earthquake damaged properties at the resort, Gulf Resorts filed a claim seeking coverage for all damaged properties under its earthquake endorsement. However, Phil Charter denied most of the claim, arguing the endorsement only covered Gulf Resorts' two swimming pools. The court found that when all provisions and riders were interpreted together, they showed the parties' intent was to only extend earthquake coverage to the two swimming pools based on the premium paid.
458 SCRA 550 Facts Plaintif is the owner of the Plaza Resort situated at Agoo, La Union and had its properties in said resort insured originally with the American Home Assurance Company (AHACA!U"# Attached in the said insurance is an indorsement that the same co$ers loss or damage (including loss or damage %y &re" to any of the property insured %y this Policy occasioned %y or through or in conse'uence of (arth'ua)e# !n the &rst four insurance policies issued %y AHAC, the ris) of loss from earth'ua)e shoc) was e*tended only to plaintif+s two swimming pools# !n ,--., an earth'ua)e struc) Central Luzon and /orthern Luzon so the properties and two swimming pools in its Agoo Playa Resort were damaged# Petitioner &led its formal demand for settlement of the damage to all its properties claiming that, pursuant to its earth'ua)e shoc) endorsement rider, !nsurance Policy /o# 0,-11 co$ers all damages to the properties within its resort caused %y earth'ua)e# Respondent denied petitioner+s claim on the ground that its insurance policy only aforded earth'ua)e shoc) co$erage to the two swimming pools of the resort# !t contended that the rider limits its lia%ility for loss to the two swimming pools of petitioner# Issue 2hether or not the lia%ility of the insurance company e*tends to the other properties of the petitioner3 !el" /o# Petitioner cannot focus on the earth'ua)e shoc) endorsement to the e*clusion of the other pro$isions# All the pro$isions and riders, ta)en and interpreted together, indu%ita%ly show the intention of the parties to e*tend earth'ua)e shoc) co$erage to the two swimming pools only# A careful e*amination of the premium recapitulation will show that it is the clear intent of the parties to e*tend earth'ua)e shoc) co$erage only to the two swimming pools# 4ection 5(," of the !nsurance Code de&nes a contract of insurance as an agreement where%y one underta)es for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage or lia%ility arising from an un)nown or contingent e$ent# 6hus, an insurance contract e*ists where the following elements concur7 ,#" 6he insured has an insura%le interest8 5#" 6he insured is su%9ect to a ris) of loss %y the happening of the designated peril8 0# " 6he insurer assumes the ris)8 1#" 4uch assumption of ris) is part of a general scheme to distri%ute actual losses among a large group of persons %earing a similar ris)8 and :#" In consi"eration of the insurer#s pro$ise, the insure" pa%s a pre$iu$# An insurance premium is the consideration paid an insurer for underta)ing to indemnify the insured against a speci&ed peril# !n &re, casualty, and marine insurance, the premium paya%le %ecomes a de%t as soon as the ris) attaches# !n the su%9ect policy, no premium payments were made with regard to earth'ua)e shoc) co$erage, e*cept on the two swimming pools# 6here is no mention of any premium paya%le for the other resort properties with regard to earth'ua)e shoc)# 6his is consistent with the history of petitioner+s pre$ious insurance policies from AHACA!U#