Professional Documents
Culture Documents
: o (Source: Perez book) Facts: o A personal accident policy was issued covering loss of legs which was defined in the policy as the amputation of the legs. o The insured met an accident resulting in total paralysis of both legs. o The insurer refused to pay because there was no loss of legs since the legs of the insured were not amputated. Issues: Was the insurer liable? Should permanent and total paralysis of both legs be considered as equivalent of loss of legs? Ruling: o The insurer was liable because loss of legs should be interpreted so as to include the permanent and total paralysis of both legs. o The interpretation of the term loss of legs as limited to amputation of both legs to the exclusion of permanent total paralysis of both legs would be contrary to public good, sound morality and public policy. It would force a desperate man to cause an amputation to be performed since his legs are of no use for life, in order to avail of the benefits of the policy. o The permanent, total paralysis of both legs suffered by the insured was equivalent to loss of both legs, since it will obviously be bedridden for the rest of his natural life.
o o