Alpha Insurance vs Castor
Content
ALPHA INSURANCE AND SURETY CO. vs ARSENIA SONIA CASTOR
G.R. No. 198174
September 2, 2013
FACTS: On February 21, 2007, respondent entered into a contract of insurance with petitioner, involving
her motor vehicle, a Toyota Revo. The contract of insurance obligates the petitioner to pay the
respondent the amount of P630K in case of loss or damage to said vehicle during the period covered.
Respondent instructed her driver to bring the above-described vehicle to a nearby auto-shop for a tuneup. However, Jose Lanuza no longer returned the motor vehicle to respondent. Respondent promptly
reported the incident to the police and concomitantly notified petitioner of the said loss and demanded
payment of the insurance proceeds.
Petitioner denied the insurance claim of respondent, stating that on the provision of the Policy, “the
company shall not be liable for Any malicious damage caused by the Insured, any member of his family
or by "A PERSON IN THE INSURED’S SERVICE.”
Respondent argued that the exception refers to damage of the motor vehicle and not to its loss.
However, petitioner’s denial of respondent’s insured claim remains firm.
Respondent filed a claim for sum of money and damages with the RTC. RTC rendered a decision in favor
of respondent, CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the loss of respondent’s vehicle is excluded under the insurance policy.
RULING: No. SC did not agree with petitioner’s argument that the word "damage," under paragraph 4 of
"Exceptions to Section III," means loss due to injury or harm to person, property or reputation, and
should be construed to cover malicious "loss" as in "theft", thus being exempt from the policy.
Based on the evidence as can be seen in the said policy, the insurance company, subject to the limits of
liability, is obligated to indemnify the insured against theft. Said provision does not qualify as to who
would commit the theft. Thus, even if the same is committed by the driver of the insured, there being
no categorical declaration of exception, the same must be covered.
Moreover, contracts of insurance, like other contracts, 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 understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.8 Accordingly, in
interpreting the exclusions in an insurance contract, the terms used specifying the excluded classes
therein are to be given their meaning as understood in common speech.
"malicious damage," as provided for in the subject policy as one of the exceptions from coverage, is the
damage that is the direct result from the deliberate or willful act of the insured, members of his family,
and any person in the insured’s service, whose clear plan or purpose was to cause damage to the
insured vehicle for purposes of defrauding the insurer.
However, when the terms of the insurance policy are ambiguous, equivocal or uncertain, such that the
parties themselves disagree about the meaning of particular provisions, the policy will be construed by
the courts liberally in favor of the assured and strictly against the insurer.
Lastly, 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 non-compliance with his obligation.
G.R. No. 198174
September 2, 2013
FACTS: On February 21, 2007, respondent entered into a contract of insurance with petitioner, involving
her motor vehicle, a Toyota Revo. The contract of insurance obligates the petitioner to pay the
respondent the amount of P630K in case of loss or damage to said vehicle during the period covered.
Respondent instructed her driver to bring the above-described vehicle to a nearby auto-shop for a tuneup. However, Jose Lanuza no longer returned the motor vehicle to respondent. Respondent promptly
reported the incident to the police and concomitantly notified petitioner of the said loss and demanded
payment of the insurance proceeds.
Petitioner denied the insurance claim of respondent, stating that on the provision of the Policy, “the
company shall not be liable for Any malicious damage caused by the Insured, any member of his family
or by "A PERSON IN THE INSURED’S SERVICE.”
Respondent argued that the exception refers to damage of the motor vehicle and not to its loss.
However, petitioner’s denial of respondent’s insured claim remains firm.
Respondent filed a claim for sum of money and damages with the RTC. RTC rendered a decision in favor
of respondent, CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the loss of respondent’s vehicle is excluded under the insurance policy.
RULING: No. SC did not agree with petitioner’s argument that the word "damage," under paragraph 4 of
"Exceptions to Section III," means loss due to injury or harm to person, property or reputation, and
should be construed to cover malicious "loss" as in "theft", thus being exempt from the policy.
Based on the evidence as can be seen in the said policy, the insurance company, subject to the limits of
liability, is obligated to indemnify the insured against theft. Said provision does not qualify as to who
would commit the theft. Thus, even if the same is committed by the driver of the insured, there being
no categorical declaration of exception, the same must be covered.
Moreover, contracts of insurance, like other contracts, 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 understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.8 Accordingly, in
interpreting the exclusions in an insurance contract, the terms used specifying the excluded classes
therein are to be given their meaning as understood in common speech.
"malicious damage," as provided for in the subject policy as one of the exceptions from coverage, is the
damage that is the direct result from the deliberate or willful act of the insured, members of his family,
and any person in the insured’s service, whose clear plan or purpose was to cause damage to the
insured vehicle for purposes of defrauding the insurer.
However, when the terms of the insurance policy are ambiguous, equivocal or uncertain, such that the
parties themselves disagree about the meaning of particular provisions, the policy will be construed by
the courts liberally in favor of the assured and strictly against the insurer.
Lastly, 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 non-compliance with his obligation.
