Scribd
Upload
12 views2 pages

FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JULIA SURPOSA, Respondents.

Case Digest

Uploaded by

gdemi4225
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views2 pages

FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JULIA SURPOSA, Respondents.

Case Digest

Uploaded by

gdemi4225
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS and JULIA SURPOSA, respondents.

Topic: Insurance Law


on October 22, 1986, deceased, Carlie Surposa was insured with petitioner Finman
General Assurance Corporation under Finman General Teachers Protection Plan
Master Policy No. 2005 and Individual Policy No. 08924 with his parents, spouses Julia
and Carlos Surposa, and brothers Christopher, Charles, Chester and Clifton, all
surnamed, Surposa, as beneficiaries. While said insurance policy was in full force and
effect, the insured, Carlie Surposa, died on October 18, 1988 as a result of a stab
wound inflicted by one of the three (3) unidentified men without provocation and warning
on the part of the former as he and his cousin, Winston Surposa, were waiting for a ride
on their way home along Rizal-Locsin Streets, Bacolod City after attending the
celebration of the "Maskarra Annual Festival." Thereafter, private respondent and the
other beneficiaries of said insurance policy filed a written notice of claim with the
petitioner insurance company which denied said claim contending that murder and
assault are not within the scope of the coverage of the insurance policy. Private
respondent filed a complaint against the FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE
CORPORATION and the court rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents.

Petitioner contend that the court erred since death resulting from murder and/or assault
are was not accidental but rather a deliberate and intentional act.

ISSUE:
WON the death of Carlie Surposa is covered within the insurance policy on the grounds
that it was accidental

RULING:
Yes, the death of Carlie Surposa is covered within the insurance policy on the grounds
that it was accidental.
The terms "accident" and "accidental" as used in insurance contracts have not acquired
any technical meaning, and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common
acceptation. Thus, the terms have been taken to mean that which happen by chance or
fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual, and
unforeseen. An accident is an event that takes place without one's foresight or
expectation — an event that proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect
of a known cause and, therefore, not expected.

In the case at bar,


he fact remains that the happening was a pure accident on the part of the victim. The
insured died from an event that took place without his foresight or expectation, an event
that proceeded from an unusual effect of a known cause and, therefore, not expected.
Neither can it be said that where was a capricious desire on the part of the accused to
expose his life to danger considering that he was just going home after attending a
festival.

Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that:

The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not


favor the party who caused the obscurity.

Moreover,

it is well settled that contracts of insurance are to be construed liberally in


favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Thus ambiguity in the
words of an insurance contract should be interpreted in favor of its
beneficiary.

You might also like