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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Life Insurance - Tan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Shie La Ma Rie
    Emilio Tan vs. Court of Appeals involved a case where the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy claimed the proceeds after the insured passed away from hepatoma. However, the insurance company denied the claim and rescinded the policy, arguing the insured made misrepresentations in his application. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurance company, holding that the "incontestability clause" did not apply since the insured passed away before the two-year period lapsed. As the policy was only in force for one year and five months, the company was not barred from proving the policy was void due to fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Life Insurance - Tan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Shie La Ma Rie
    27 views1 page
    Emilio Tan vs. Court of Appeals involved a case where the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy claimed the proceeds after the insured passed away from hepatoma. However, the insurance company denied the claim and rescinded the policy, arguing the insured made misrepresentations in his application. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurance company, holding that the "incontestability clause" did not apply since the insured passed away before the two-year period lapsed. As the policy was only in force for one year and five months, the company was not barred from proving the policy was void due to fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

    Original Description:

    Life Insurance

    Original Title

    Life Insurance- Tan vs 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?

    Emilio Tan vs. Court of Appeals involved a case where the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy claimed the proceeds after the insured passed away from hepatoma. However, the insurance company denied the claim and rescinded the policy, arguing the insured made misrepresentations in his application. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurance company, holding that the "incontestability clause" did not apply since the insured passed away before the two-year period lapsed. As the policy was only in force for one year and five months, the company was not barred from proving the policy was void due to fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Life Insurance - Tan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Shie La Ma Rie
    Emilio Tan vs. Court of Appeals involved a case where the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy claimed the proceeds after the insured passed away from hepatoma. However, the insurance company denied the claim and rescinded the policy, arguing the insured made misrepresentations in his application. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurance company, holding that the "incontestability clause" did not apply since the insured passed away before the two-year period lapsed. As the policy was only in force for one year and five months, the company was not barred from proving the policy was void due to fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

    Copyright:

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

    EMILIO TAN vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. 48049, 29 June 1989

    FACTS:

    Tan Lee Siong, father of herein petitioners, applied for life insurance in the amount of P80,000.00 with
    respondent company Philippine American Life Insurance Company. Said application was approved and a
    corresponding policy was issued effective November 5, 1973, with petitioners as the beneficiaries. On April 26,
    1975, Tan Lee Siong died of hepatoma. Hence, petitioners filed with respondent company their claim for the
    proceeds of the life insurance policy. However, the insurance company denied the said 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 thereupon refunded. The
    petitioners contend that the respondent company no longer had the right to rescind the contract of insurance
    as rescission must allegedly be done during the lifetime of the insured within two years and prior to the
    commencement of action.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the insurance company has the right to rescind the contract of insurance despite the presence
    of an incontestability clause

    HELD:

    YES. 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 two years during the insured’s lifetime. The phrase “during the lifetime”
    found in Section 48 of the Insurance Law simply means that the policy is no longer considered in force after the
    insured has died. The key phrase in the second paragraph of Section 48 is “for a period of two years”. The
    policy was issued on November 6, 1973 and the insured died on April 26, 1975. The policy was thus in force for
    a period of only one year and five months. Considering that the insured died before the two-year period has
    lapsed, respondent company is not, therefore, barred from proving that the policy is void ab initio by reason of
    the insured’s fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. Moreover, respondent company rescinded the
    contract of insurance and refunded the premiums paid on November 11, 1975, previous to the commencement
    of this action on November 27, 1975. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The
    questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

    You might also like