SimeondelRosariovs.TheEquitableInsurance andCasualtyCoInc.(1963) Facts: On February 7, 1957, Equitable Insurance and Casualty Co., Inc.

, issued Personal Accident Policy No. 7136 on the life of Francisco del Rosario, alias Paquito Bolero, son of Simeon, binding itself to pay the sum of P1,000.00 to P3,000.00, as indemnity for the death of the insured. The provisions of the insurance policy pertinent to the case are as follows: Part I. Indemnity For Death If the insured sustains any bodily injury which is effected solely through violent, external, visible and accidental means, and which shall result, independently of all other causes and within sixty (60) days from the occurrence thereof, in the Death of the Insured, the Company shall pay the amount set opposite such injury: Section 1. Injury sustained other than those specified below unless excepted hereinafter. . . . . . . . P1,000.00 Section 2. Injury sustained by the wrecking or disablement of a railroad passenger car or street railway car in or on which the Insured is travelling as a farepaying passenger. . . . . . . P1,500.00 Part VI. Exceptions This policy shall not cover disappearance of the Insured nor shall it cover Death, Disability, Hospital fees, or Loss of Time, caused to the insured: . . . (h) By drowning except as a consequence of the wrecking or disablement in the Philippine waters of a passenger steam or motor vessel in which the Insured is travelling as a farepaying passenger; . . . . A rider to the Policy contained the following: IV. DROWNING It is hereby declared and agreed that exemption clause Letter (h) embodied in PART VI of the policy is hereby waived by the company, and to form a part of the provision covered by the policy.

A fire broke out in the motor launch ISLAMA. As a consequence of which, Francisco del Rosario and 33 others were forced to jump off the launch. This resulted in the death of Francisco and his beneficiary Remedios Jayme. Equitable insurance paid Simeon del Rosario, father of Francisco Php1000 pursuant to Sec.1 of Part 1 of the policy. On the day of receipt, Atty. Francisco wrote Equitable acknowledging the receipt of Simeon of the amount of Php1000 but informed the company that the amount is incorrect as Simeon was entitled to Php1,500, under Sec.2 Part 1 of the policy. Equitable referred the matter to the Insurance Commissioner who opined that the liability of the company is only Php1000. Thus, Equitable refused to pay. Subsequently, Atty. Francisco asked for Php3000 from Equitable. The company refused to pay. Hence a complaint for the recovery of the balance was instituted. Issue: How much should the indemnity be? Ruling: The CFI ruled that: On the face of the policy Exhibit "A" itself, death by drowning is a ground for recovery apart from the bodily injury because death by bodily injury is covered by Part I of the policy while death by drowning is covered by Part VI thereof. But while the policy mentions specific amounts that may be recovered for death for bodily injury, yet, there is not specific amount mentioned in the policy for death thru drowning although the latter is, under Part VI of the policy, a ground for recovery thereunder. Since the defendant has bound itself to pay P1000.00 to P3,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the insured but the policy does not positively state any definite amount that may be recovered in case of death by drowning, there is an ambiguity in this respect in the policy, which ambiguity must be interpreted in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer so as to allow greater indemnity. Thus, del Rosario is entitled to Php3000. Since Equitable has already paid Php1000, a balance of Php2000 remains to be paid. SC upheld the ruling of the CFI for it is supported by the generally accepted principles of insurance, which enunciate that where there is an ambiguity with respect to the terms and conditions of the policy, the same will be resolved against the one responsible thereof. It should be recalled in this connection, that generally, the insured, has little, if any, participation in the preparation of the policy, together with the drafting of its terms and Conditions. The interpretation of obscure stipulations in a contract should not favor the party

who cause the obscurity (Art. 1377, N.C.C.), which, in the case at bar, is the insurance company. . . . . And so it has been generally held that the "terms in an insurance policy, which are ambiguous, equivocal or uncertain . . . are to be construed strictly against, the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured so as to effect the dominant purpose of indemnity or payment to the insured, especially where a forfeiture is involved," (29 Am. Jur. 181) and the reason for this rule is that the "insured usually has no voice in the selection or arrangement of the words employed and that the language of the contract is selected with great care and deliberation by expert and legal advisers employed by, and acting exclusively in the interest of, the insurance company" (44 C.J.S. 1174). Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-8151, Dec. 16, 1955. . . . . Where two interpretations, equally fair, of languages used in an insurance policy may be made, that which allows the greater indemnity will prevail. (L'Engel v. Scotish Union & Nat. F. Ins. Co., 48 Fla. 82, 37 So. 462, 67 LRA 581 111 Am. St. Rep. 70, 5 Ann. Cas. 749). At any event, the policy under consideration, covers death or disability by accidental means, and the appellant insurance company agreed to pay P1,000.00 to P3,000.00. is indemnity for death of the insured. FIELDMENSINSURANCECO.vs.VDA.DE SONGCO FACTS: Federico Songco owned a private jeepney. On September 15, 1960, he was induced by Fieldmen's insurance agent Benjamin Sambat to apply for a Common Carrier's Liability Insurance Policy covering his motor vehicle. He was issued a Common Carriers Accident Insurance Policy. On the next year, he renewed the policy by paying the annual premium. During the effectivity of the renewed policy, the insured vehicle collided with another car while being driven by Rodolfo Songco, a duly licensed driver and son of Federico (the vehicle owner). As a result, Federico Songco (father) and Rodolfo Songco (son) died, along with other passengers. A claim was filed but was denied by the insurance company on the pretext that what was insured was a private vehicle and not a common carrier. During the trial, it was declared by a witness that when insurance agent Benjamin Sambat was inducing Songco to insure his vehicle, the latter butted in saying, Our vehicle is a private vehicle and not for passengers. But the agent replied: Regardless of whether your vehicle was an owner-type or for passengers, it could still be insured because our company is not owned by the Government. And the

Government has nothing to do with our company.

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the claimants. It held that where inequitable conduct is shown by an insurance firm, it is estopped from enforcing forfeitures in its favor, in order to forestall fraud or imposition on the insured. After Fieldmen's Insurance Co. had led the insured Songco to believe that he could qualify under the common carrier liability insurance policy, it could not, thereafter, be permitted to change its stand to the detriment of the heirs of the insured. The failure to apply the Doctrine of Estoppel in this case would result in a gross travesty of justice. ISSUE: Whether or not the insurance claim is proper? RULING: The fact that the insured owned a private vehicle, not a common carrier, was something which the company knew all along. In fact, it exerted the utmost pressure on the insured, a man of scant education, to enter into the contract of insurance. The Court of Appeals also held that since some of the conditions contained in the policy were impossible to comply with under the existing conditions at the time, the insurer is estopped from asserting breach of such conditions. The Supreme Court, in affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, took judicial notice of the fact that nowadays, monopolies, cartels and concentration of capital, endowed with overwhelming economic power, manage to impose upon parties dealing with them cunningly prepared agreements that the weaker party may not change one whit, his participation in the agreement being reduced to the alternative of take it or leave it labelled since Raymond Saleilles as contracts by adherence (contrats d'adhesion), in contrast to those entered into by parties bargaining on an equal footing, such contracts (i.e. insurance policies & international bills of lading) obviously call for greater strictness and vigilance on the part of courts of justice with a view to protecting the weaker party from abuses. Citing the case of Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union & Rock Insurance, "The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith (uberima fides) not for the insured alone but equally so for the insurer; in fact, it is more so for the latter, since its dominant bargaining position carries with it stricter responsibility." Landichovs.GSIS [G.R. No. L-28866 March 17, 1972] FACTS: On June 1, 1964, the GSIS issued in favor of Flaviano Landicho, a civil engineer of the Bureau of Public Works, stationed at Mamburao, Mindoro Occidental, optional additional life insurance policy No. OG-136107 in the sum of P7,900. xxx