Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.
3.
4.
5.
interpretation or construction
anymore. Courts are not allowed to make
contracts for the parties; rather, they will
intervene
only when the terms of the policy are ambiguous,
equivocal,
or uncertain. The parties must abide by the
terms of the contract because such terms constit
ute the
measureof the insurer's liability and compliance t
herewith is a
condition precedent to the insured's right of reco
very from the insurer.
While it is a cardinal
principle of insurance law that a policy or
contract of insurance is to be construed liberally
inf
avor of the insured and strictly against the insure
r
company, yet contracts of insurance, like other co
ntracts, are to be construed according to
the sense and meaning of the terms which
the parties themselves have used. If such terms
are clear and
unambiguous, they must be taken and understoo
d in their plain, ordinary and popular
sense. Moreover,
obligations arising from contracts have the force
of law between
the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith.
Petitioners should be aware of the fact that a party is
not relieved of the duty to exercise the ordinary care
and prudence that would be exacted in relation to other
contracts. The conformity of the insured to the terms of
the policy is implied from his failure to express any
disagreement with what is provided for. It may be true
that themajority rule, as cited
by petitioners, is that injured
persons may accept policies without reading them, and
that this is not negligence per se. But, this is not without
any exception. It is and was incumbent upon petitioner
Sy to read the insurance contracts, and this can be
reasonably expected
of him considering that he has been a businessman
since 1965 and the contract concerns indemnity in case
ofloss in his money-making trade of which important
consideration he could not have been unaware as it was
pre-in case of loss in his money-making trade of which
important consideration he could not have been
unaware as it was precisely the reason for his procuring
the same.
6.
AS CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY
8. MAYER
STEEL
PIPE
CORPORATION
and
HONGKONG
GOVERNMENT
SUPPLIES
DEPARTMENT, petitioners,
vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
SOUTH
SEA
SURETY
AND
INSURANCE CO., INC. and the CHARTER
INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
Respondent court erred in applying Section 3(6)
of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
Section 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act states
that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all
9.
PARAMOUNT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
HON. MAXIMO M. JAPZON, Presiding Judge, Br.
36, RTC, Manila; City Sheriff and Deputy
Sheriffs Nestor Macabilin & Teodoro Episcope,
public respondents, JOSE LARA and ARSENIO
PAED, private respondents.
RIGHT TO SUBROGATION
10. THE
PHILIPPINE
AMERICAN
GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS
and
FELMAN
SHIPPING LINES, respondents.
THE
YIP
PHILIPPINES, plaintiffWAI
MING, accused-
the
The
the
the