Lex Rex Ph

Alpha Insurance vs. Arsenia Castor Digest

G.R. 198174
Sept 02, 2013

Facts

In 2007, Castor insured her Toyota Revo with Alpha Insurance (Alpha) for P630k in case of loss or damage during the coverage period. Within the period, Arsenia instructed her driver Lanuza to bring the vehicle to a nearby shop for a tune-up. However, Lanuza never returned it despite diligent efforts to locate it. She reported the incident to the police and notified Alpha of the said loss and demanded the payment of P630k.

Alpha denied the claim citing the signed Policy Exceptions stating that “the company shall not be liable for any malicious damage caused by the Insured or by a person in the insured’s service.”

Arsenia argued that the exception refers to the damage of the vehicle and not to its loss. So she filed a complaint with RTC.

Lower Courts: RTC favored Arsenia.
CA affirmed RTC. Reasons: Because the exception only covers damage and not loss, and since the policy is ambiguous, the meaning should be construed liberally in favor of the assured and strictly against the insurer.

Alpha filed before SC a petition for certiorari under Rule 45

Issues and Ruling

Is the loss of the insured’s vehicle excluded under the insurance policy?

No.

(1) TERMS ARE CLEAR, HENCE MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THEIR ORDINARY SENSE
“Damage” under the “Exceptions to Section III” does not cover “loss” or “theft.” Adverse to Alpha’s claim, “loss” is different from “damage”. Loss means the act of losing or failure to keep possession, while damage means deterioration or damage to property. Therefore, the “malicious damage” only covers “injury” to the motor vehicle caused by the person under the insured’s service (e.g. driver) but it does not contemplate “loss of property” as what happened in this case.

(2) WITH AMBIGUITY, IT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE INSURED
Alpha has liberally dileanated the words “loss” and “damage” throughout the policy but suddenly went specific by using the word “damage” in the policy exception regarding “malicious damage.” Now, it should be allowed to include the term “theft.” Since 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. Moreover, contracts of insurance are contract of adhesion, it must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the latter’s interest. Limitations of liability should be regarded with extreme jealousy and must be construed in such a way as to preclude the insurer from non-compliance with its obligations. (MalayanInsurance vs CA) By reason of the exclusive control of the insurance company over the terms and phraseology of the insurance contract, ambiguity must be strictly interpreted against the insurer to avoid forfeiture. (Philamcare vs CA)

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Biased Witness

when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his

Read More »

Fraud and Undue Influence

Fraud There is fraud when, through the insidious (crafty, deceptive, tricky) words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a

Read More »

Brown-Araneta vs. Araneta

Facts Juan and Michelle were married and had 2 minor children. They separated and the children remained in Michelle’s custody. Juan filed for a Petition

Read More »
en_USEnglish