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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 394 views

    Tan V. Ca GR NO. 48049 June 29, 1989 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Franzesca Vinoya
    The Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company has the right to rescind the life insurance policy even after the insured's death. According to Section 48 of the Insurance Code, the insurer cannot prove a policy is void due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured if the policy has been in force for 2 years during the insured's lifetime. However, in this case the policy was only in force for 1 year and 5 months and the insured died before the 2-year period ended. Therefore, the insurance company was not barred from proving the policy was void from the start due to fraudulent concealment by the insured, who had concealed treatments for diabetes, hypertension, and liver disorders.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan V. Ca GR NO. 48049 June 29, 1989 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Franzesca Vinoya
    394 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company has the right to rescind the life insurance policy even after the insured's death. According to Section 48 of the Insurance Code, the insurer cannot prove a policy is void due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured if the policy has been in force for 2 years during the insured's lifetime. However, in this case the policy was only in force for 1 year and 5 months and the insured died before the 2-year period ended. Therefore, the insurance company was not barred from proving the policy was void from the start due to fraudulent concealment by the insured, who had concealed treatments for diabetes, hypertension, and liver disorders.

    Original Description:

    TAN V. CA (Insurance)

    Original Title

    TAN V. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company has the right to rescind the life insurance policy even after the insured's death. According to Section 48 of the Insurance Code, the insurer cannot prove a policy is void due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured if the policy has been in force for 2 years during the insured's lifetime. However, in this case the policy was only in force for 1 year and 5 months and the insured died before the 2-year period ended. Therefore, the insurance company was not barred from proving the policy was void from the start due to fraudulent concealment by the insured, who had concealed treatments for diabetes, hypertension, and liver disorders.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan V. Ca GR NO. 48049 June 29, 1989 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Franzesca Vinoya
    The Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company has the right to rescind the life insurance policy even after the insured's death. According to Section 48 of the Insurance Code, the insurer cannot prove a policy is void due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured if the policy has been in force for 2 years during the insured's lifetime. However, in this case the policy was only in force for 1 year and 5 months and the insured died before the 2-year period ended. Therefore, the insurance company was not barred from proving the policy was void from the start due to fraudulent concealment by the insured, who had concealed treatments for diabetes, hypertension, and liver disorders.

    Copyright:

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

    TAN V.

    CA

    GR NO. 48049 June 29, 1989

    FACTS:

    On September 23, 1973, Tan Lee Siong, father of herein petitioners, applied for life
    insurance in the amount of P80,000 with PHILAM which was approved and with petitioners as
    the beneficiaries. On April 26, 1975, Tan Lee Siong died of hepatoma and the petitioners then
    claimed the proceeds of the life insurance policy. However, PHILAM denied petitioners’ claim
    and rescinded the policy by reason of the alleged misrepresentation and concealment of
    material facts made by the deceased Tan Lee Siong in his application for insurance. The
    premiums paid on the policy were refunded. The petitioners alleges that PHILAM’s refusal to
    pay them the proceeds of the policy was unjustified and unreasonable. They also contend that
    PHILAM has no right to rescind the contract of insurance as rescission must allegedly be done
    during the lifetime of the insured within 2 years and prior to the commencement of action.

    ISSUE: WON the respondent company has the right to rescind the policy when the insured is
    already dead

    HELD:

    Yes. According to Section 48 of Insurance Code, “Whenever a right to rescind a contract of insurance
    is given to the insurer by any provision of this chapter, such right must be exercised previous to the
    commencement of an action on the contract. 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 ignition or is
    rescindable by reason of the fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent”.

    The so-called “incontestability clause” precludes the insurer from raising the defenses of false
    representations or concealment of material facts insofar as health and previous diseases are
    concerned if the insurance has been in force for at least 2 years during the insured’s lifetime.
    The phrase “during the lifetime” means that the policy is no longer considered in force after the
    insured has died. The key phrase in the 2nd par of Sec 48 is “for period of 2 years”.

    The policy was in force for a period of only 1 year and 5 months, the insured died before the 2-
    year period had lapsed, respondent company is not barred from proving that the policy is void
    ab initio by reason of the insured’s fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. Also, the
    evidence of the respondent company shows that the insured was diabetic for 5 years. Because of
    the concealment made by the deceased of his consultations and treatments for hypertension,
    diabetes and liver disorders, respondent company was thus misled into accepting the risk and
    approving his application. For as long as no adverse medical history is revealed in the
    application form, an applicant for insurance is presumed to be healthy and physically fit and no
    further medical investigation or examination is conducted by respondent company.

    You might also like