Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA
May 23, 1995
Facts:
Producers Bank was insured by the defendants and an insurance
policy was issued.
An armored car of defendant Producers was robbed while in the
process of transferring cash to its Head Office.
The said armored car was driven by Magalong, who was assigned
by PRC Management System to defendant. It was escorted by
Security Guard Atiga who was assigned by Unicorn Security
Services to the defendant.
Upon investigation of the Pasay police, an information charging
the driver and security guard with violation of Anti- Highway
Roberry was filed with RTC.
Demands were made by the defendant upon Fortune to pay the
amount of the loss due to the robbery.
o Fortune refused to pay as the loss is excluded from the
coverage of the insurance policy specifically under General
Exceptions Section (b) which reads as follows
any loss caused by any dishonest, fraudulent or criminal
act of the insured or any officer, employee, partner,
director, trustee or authorized representative of the
Insured whether acting alone or in conjunction with
others
Defendant opposes the contention of Fortune and argued that the
driver and security guard of the said armored car were not its officer,
employee, trustee or authorized representative at the time of the
robbery.
RTC decided in favor of the defendants.
o RTC said that the driver and security guard were not employees
of the plaintiff because their services were just offered by PRC
Management and Unicorn Security.
CA affirmed in toto.
Hence this petition.
Issue: WON petitioner Fortune is liable to defendant Producer under the
insurance.
Held: NO, Fortune is not liable.