A:
a. YES. The car was lost due to theft. What applies in this case is the “theft” clause, and not the “authorized driver” clause. It is immaterial that HL’s wife was driving the car with an expired driver’s license at the time it was carnapped.
b. The promissory note is not affected by whatever befalls the subject matter of the accessory contract. The unpaid balance on the promissory note should be paid and not only the installments due and payable before the loss of the car.
A: YES, the beneficiary of X may validly invoke the incontestability clause. If the incontestability clause can apply even to cases of intentional concealment and misrepresentation, there would be no cogent reason for denying such application where the insured had not been guilty thereof. When X filled out the card containing the printed clause “I request the insurance for which I may become eligible under said Group Policy”, it behooved the insurer to look into the qualifications of X whether he can thus be covered or not by the group life insurance policy. In issuing the certificate of coverage to X, Phoenix may, in fact, be said to have waived the 30-hour per week requirement.
A: A life insurance is assignable. A provision, however, in the policy stating that written notice of such an assignment should be given to the insurer is valid. The failure of the notice of assignment would thus preclude the assignee from claiming rights under the policy. The failure of notice did not, however, avoid the policy; hence, upon the death of Jose, the proceeds would, in the absence of a designated beneficiary, go to the estate of the insured. The estate, in turn, would be liable for the loan of P50,000 owing in favor of Y.
A: Beverly can recover the proceeds of the policy from the insurer. The death of the insured was not due to suicide or willful exposure to needless peril which are the excepted risks. The insured’s act was purely an act of negligence which is covered by the policy and for which the insured got the insurance for his protection. In fact, he removed the magazine from the gun and when he pointed the gun to his temple he did so because he thought that it was safe for him to do so. He did so to assure his sister that the gun was harmless. There is none in the policy that would relieve the insurer of liability for the death of the insured since the death was an accident.
A: NO. These 2 contentions of the insurance company are not tenable. The insurer is liable for injury or death even due to the insured’s gross negligence. The fact that the insured removed the magazine from the handgun means that the insured did not willfully expose himself to needless peril. At most, the insured is only guilty of negligence.
A: The estate is entitled to claim for the proceeds of the insurance policy. As a general rule, the insured may designate anyone he wishes to be his/her beneficiary. However, Art. 2012 of the Civil Code, which applies suppletorily to the Insurance Code, provides that any person who is forbidden from receiving any donation under Art. 739 cannot be named beneficiary of a life insurance policy by the person who cannot make any donation to him.
Art. 739 specifically bars the donations as between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage. Since Purita is a common-law wife of Juan, she falls squarely into this category, therefore she is disqualified to receive insurance proceeds and when this happens, the estate of the deceased is the one entitled to the proceeds. (Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Capronia Ebrado, G.R. No. L-44059, Oct. 28, 1977)
A: NO. Jacob cannot add other beneficiaries as this would diminish the interest of Diwata who is the irrevocably designated beneficiary. The insured can only do so with the consent of Diwata.
A: The irrevocable beneficiary is deemed to have acquired a vested interest in the policy so much so that the insured or policy owner cannot exercise any right or benefit under the policy, like changing or adding a new beneficiary, obtaining a policy loan or making a partial or full withdrawal of the cash surrender value, without the express written consent of the irrevocable beneficiary.
A: NO. SOS cannot avoid liability under the policy. While Gemma’s interest as beneficiary in the policy is considered forfeited since she is an accessory to the killing of Antonio, the proceeds of the policy should be paid to the nearest relative of Antonio (if not otherwise disqualified). The Insurance Code provides that the interest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy shall be forfeited when the beneficiary is the principal, accomplice, or accessory in willfully bringing about the death of the insured; in which event, the nearest relative of the insured shall receive the proceeds of said insurance if not otherwise disqualified.
A:
a. YES. The “incontestability clause” is a provision in law that after a policy of life insurance made payable on the death of the insured shall have been in force during the lifetime of the insured for a period of 2 years from the date of its issue or of its last reinstatement, the insurer cannot prove that the policy is void ab initio or is rescindable by reason of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent.
In this case, the policy was issued on August 30, 1993, and the insured died on April 10, 1996. The insurance policy was thus in force for a period of 3 years, 7 months, and 24 days. Considering that the insured died after the 2-year period, Ilocos is, therefore, barred from proving that the policy is void ab initio by reason of the insured’s fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation or want of insurable interest on the part of the beneficiary.
b. YES. Aban is entitled to claim the proceeds. After the 2-year period lapse, or when the insured dies within the period, the insurer must make good on the policy, even though the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation, as in this case, when the insured did not personally apply for the policy as she was illiterate and that it was the beneficiary who filled up the insurance application designating herself as beneficiary.
