Finman General Assurance Corporation v. CA G.R. No. 100970 J.

Nocon Doctrine: It is well settled that insurance contracts are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Ambiguity should be interpreted in favof of its beneficiary. Facts: Carlie Surposa, deceased, was insured with Finman General Assurance Corporation (Finman) under Finman General Teachers Protection Plan Master Policy and an Individual Policy with his parents and brothers as beneficiaries. The deceased died as a result of a stab wound inflicted by one of the three unidentified men without provocation and warning while he and his cousin were waiting for a ride on their way home. The beneficiaries file a written notice of claim which was denied by Finman on the ground that murder and assault are not within the scope of the coverage of the policy. The Insurance Commission rendered decision on the complaint filed by one of the beneficiaries, Julia Surposa, ordering Finman to honor the claim filed by beneficiaries. The aforementioned decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; hence, Finman filed this petition contending that act of assailant was deliberate and intentional. Therefore, said death was committed with deliberate intent which cannot be indemnified under a personal accident insurance policy. Issue: Is private respondent entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy? Held: The Court held in favor of the private respondent and denied the petition. The personal accident insurance policy specifically enumerated 10 circumstances where no liability shall attach to the petitioner for loss, damage or injury suffered by the insured due to stipulated cases. The happening of the event which led to the death of the insured was an accident on the part of the victim. The general rule under these circumstances is that there is no accident when a deliberate act is performed. In this case, the principle of expresso unius exclusion alterius September 2, 1992

which means that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another is applicable. Murder and assault not having been expressly included in the enumeration of circumstances that would negate liability in the insurance policy cannot be considered to imply the discharge of the insurance company from liability. The failure of Finman to include death resulting from murder or assault implied that there was no intention to limit or exempt itself from liability for such death. Petition denied.