De La Cruz v.

Capital Insurance
G.R. L-21574 – June 30, 1966
J. Barrera

Topic: Life Insurance – Accidental Death

Doctrine: Defense of good faith is not applicable for concealment + It is immaterial whether the cause of
death was not due to a concealed information during the application [e.g. concealed health issues, but died
from an accident]

Petitioners: Simon De La Cruz

Respondents: The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.

Insurer The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.

Insured Eduardo De La Cruz (Son of Petitioner)
Insurance Product/s Accident Insurance Policy
Date Purchased N/A
Petition filed Claiming for payment of indemnity under the insurance
Cause of action Insured died during a boxing match. Petitioner is father and beneficiary.

Case Summary: Eduardo De La Cruz (insured) had an accident insurance policy issued by Capital. He
died during a boxing match, where he slid and was subsequently hit by his opponent. Petitioner’s (his
father and beneficiary) claim was denied by Capital. The latter said that Eduardo didn’t by through
accidental means, since he entered the boxing match by himself. Court ruled in favor of petitioner, stating
that he actually indeed died due to accidental means when he slid, and his opponent had the opportunity
to punch him.

Facts:
 Eduardo De La Cruz (employee of Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc.) was a holder of an accident
insurance policy issued by the Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. [Capital]
 January 1, 1957: Eduardo joined a boxing match sponsored by his employer, where he slipped
and was then hit by his opponent on the back of his head. This caused Eduardo to fall hitting the
rope of the ring. He was brought to the hospital, where he died on the same day due to hemorrhage,
intracanial, left.
 Simon De La Cruz (petitioner, father of Eduardo) is now claiming the payment of indemnity under
the insurance policy. This was denied by Capital stating that the death was not caused by an
accident.
 Capital said that Eduardo was insured “against death or disability by accidental means.” It
contends that while the death of the insured was due to a head-injury (an accident), the
participation in the boxing contest was the "means" that produced the injury which, in turn, caused
the death
o KEN NOTE: Basically, they want to make a distinction between “accident” and
“accidental means.” They’re saying that what is required to be accidental is the means that
caused the death, and not the death itself.
 CFI Pangasinan: Ruled in favor of Dela Cruz.

Issues + Held: W/N the beneficiary can claim under the insurance policy [YES]
  Court said that the recent decisions in the US is to eliminate the distinction between an “accident”
and “accidental means.”
 However, the Court said that even if the Capital’s theory is correct, the death of Eduardo would
still be entitled to indemnification. While the participation of the insured in the boxing contest is
voluntary, the injury was sustained when he slid (the accidental means), giving occasion to the
infliction by his opponent of the blow that threw him to the ropes of the ring. Without this
unfortunate incident, that is, the unintentional slipping of the deceased, perhaps he could not have
received that blow in the head and would not have died.
 Furthermore, the policy explicitly excluded some sports from its coverage, which does not include
boxing! [Death or disablement consequent upon the Insured engaging in football, hunting,
pigsticking, steeplechasing, polo-playing, racing of any kind, mountaineering, or motorcycling.]

Ruling: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.