Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    56 - Sunlife Assurance Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    perlitainocencio
    1. Sunlife Assurance Company sought to rescind an insurance policy taken out by Robert Bacani due to concealment of material facts by the insured. 2. Specifically, Bacani failed to disclose that he had been hospitalized two weeks prior for renal failure when applying for life insurance. 3. The court ruled in favor of Sunlife, finding that Bacani's non-disclosure of his medical condition was material and relevant to the approval of the policy, allowing Sunlife to properly rescind the contract within the contestability period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    56 - Sunlife Assurance Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    perlitainocencio
    26 views1 page
    1. Sunlife Assurance Company sought to rescind an insurance policy taken out by Robert Bacani due to concealment of material facts by the insured. 2. Specifically, Bacani failed to disclose that he had been hospitalized two weeks prior for renal failure when applying for life insurance. 3. The court ruled in favor of Sunlife, finding that Bacani's non-disclosure of his medical condition was material and relevant to the approval of the policy, allowing Sunlife to properly rescind the contract within the contestability period.

    Original Title

    56 – Sunlife Assurance vs Court of Appeals.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Sunlife Assurance Company sought to rescind an insurance policy taken out by Robert Bacani due to concealment of material facts by the insured. 2. Specifically, Bacani failed to disclose that he had been hospitalized two weeks prior for renal failure when applying for life insurance. 3. The court ruled in favor of Sunlife, finding that Bacani's non-disclosure of his medical condition was material and relevant to the approval of the policy, allowing Sunlife to properly rescind the contract within the contestability period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views1 page

    56 - Sunlife Assurance Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    perlitainocencio
    1. Sunlife Assurance Company sought to rescind an insurance policy taken out by Robert Bacani due to concealment of material facts by the insured. 2. Specifically, Bacani failed to disclose that he had been hospitalized two weeks prior for renal failure when applying for life insurance. 3. The court ruled in favor of Sunlife, finding that Bacani's non-disclosure of his medical condition was material and relevant to the approval of the policy, allowing Sunlife to properly rescind the contract within the contestability period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    56 – Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995
    Digest by Lor Saguinsin

    Facts:
    1. On April 15, 1986, Robert John B. Bacani procured a life insurance contract for himself from
    petitioner.
    2. On June 26, 1987, the insured died in a plane crash. Respondent Bernarda Bacani filed a
    claim with petitioner, seeking the benefits of the insurance policy taken by her son.
    Petitioner conducted an investigation and its findings prompted it to reject the claim.
    a. In its letter, petitioner informed respondent Bernarda Bacani, that the insured did
    not disclose material facts relevant to the issuance of the policy, thus rendering the
    contract of insurance voidable.
    b. Petitioner discovered that two weeks prior to his application for insurance, the
    insured was examined and confined at the Lung Center of the Philippines, where he
    was diagnosed for renal failure. The insured did not disclose this.

    Issue:
    1. Whether the material undisclosed was relevant to the issuance of the policy that would
    render it voidable? (YES)

    Held:
    1. Petitioner properly exercised its right to rescind the contract of insurance by reason of the
    concealment employed by the insured. It must be emphasized that rescission was exercised within the
    two-year contestability period as recognized in Section 48 of The Insurance Code.
     Section 26 of the Insurance Code is explicit in requiring a party to a contract of insurance to
    communicate to the other, in good faith, all facts within his knowledge which are material to
    the contract and as to which he makes no warranty, and which the other has no means of
    ascertaining.
    o Materiality is to be determined not by the event, but solely by the probable and
    reasonable influence of the facts upon the party to whom communication is due, in
    forming his estimate of the disadvantages of the proposed contract or in making his
    inquiries.
     The terms of the contract are clear. The insured is specifically required to disclose to the
    insurer matters relating to his health. Materiality of the information withheld does not
    depend on the state of mind of the insured. Neither does it depend on the actual or physical
    events which ensue. Thus, "goad faith" is no defense in concealment.
     The insured's failure to disclose the fact that he was hospitalized for two weeks prior to filing
    his application for insurance, raises grave doubts about his bonafides. It appears that such
    concealment was deliberate on his part.
    o The information which the insured failed to disclose were material and relevant to
    the approval and issuance of the insurance policy. The matters concealed would
    have definitely affected petitioner's action on his application, either by approving it
    with the corresponding adjustment for a higher premium or rejecting the same.
     Anent the finding that the facts concealed had no bearing to the cause of death of the
    insured, it is well settled that the insured need not die of the disease he had failed to disclose
    to the insurer. It is sufficient that his non-disclosure misled the insurer in forming his
    estimates of the risks of the proposed insurance policy or in making inquiries

    You might also like