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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    BPI Laingo

    Uploaded by

    Van Gogh
    The Supreme Court ruled that Yolanda Laingo, the beneficiary of her son Rheozel's savings and insurance account with BPI and FGU Insurance, was not bound by the three-month deadline to file an insurance claim. While Rheozel named Laingo as his beneficiary, BPI and FGU Insurance did not notify her of the insurance coverage after his death. Without this knowledge, it was impossible for her to meet the filing deadline in the insurance contract. The Court found that BPI acted as an agent for FGU Insurance in marketing the insurance product to customers. As an unnamed beneficiary with no notice of the policy terms, La

    Copyright:

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

    BPI Laingo

    Uploaded by

    Van Gogh
    56 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Yolanda Laingo, the beneficiary of her son Rheozel's savings and insurance account with BPI and FGU Insurance, was not bound by the three-month deadline to file an insurance claim. While Rheozel named Laingo as his beneficiary, BPI and FGU Insurance did not notify her of the insurance coverage after his death. Without this knowledge, it was impossible for her to meet the filing deadline in the insurance contract. The Court found that BPI acted as an agent for FGU Insurance in marketing the insurance product to customers. As an unnamed beneficiary with no notice of the policy terms, La

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Yolanda Laingo, the beneficiary of her son Rheozel's savings and insurance account with BPI and FGU Insurance, was not bound by the three-month deadline to file an insurance claim. While Rheozel named Laingo as his beneficiary, BPI and FGU Insurance did not notify her of the insurance coverage after his death. Without this knowledge, it was impossible for her to meet the filing deadline in the insurance contract. The Court found that BPI acted as an agent for FGU Insurance in marketing the insurance product to customers. As an unnamed beneficiary with no notice of the policy terms, La

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    56 views2 pages

    BPI Laingo

    Uploaded by

    Van Gogh
    The Supreme Court ruled that Yolanda Laingo, the beneficiary of her son Rheozel's savings and insurance account with BPI and FGU Insurance, was not bound by the three-month deadline to file an insurance claim. While Rheozel named Laingo as his beneficiary, BPI and FGU Insurance did not notify her of the insurance coverage after his death. Without this knowledge, it was impossible for her to meet the filing deadline in the insurance contract. The Court found that BPI acted as an agent for FGU Insurance in marketing the insurance product to customers. As an unnamed beneficiary with no notice of the policy terms, La

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    787 SCRA 541 / G.R. No. 205206. March 16, 2016.

    BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioners,

    vs.

    YOLANDA LAINGO, respondent.FACTS

    Rheozel Laingo, son of respondent, opened a savings and insurance account with BPI, where depositors
    areautomatically covered by an insurance policy against disability or death issued by petitioner FGU
    InsuranceCorporation. Laingo was named as beneficiary in the insurance.

    Rheozel died due to a vehicular accident. Upon his death, Laing

    o instructed the family’s personal secretary togo to BPI and inquire about the savings account of
    Rheozel. Laingo wanted to use the money in Rheozel’saccount for his burial and funeral expenses. BPI
    accommodated Laingo’s request and allowed her to withdr

    awP995,000 from the account.

    More than two years later, Rheozel’s sister found the Personal Accident Insurance Coverage Certificate
    issued

    by FGU Insurance. Laingo then sent letters to BPI and FGU Insurance requesting them to process her
    claimas benefic

    iary of Rheozel’s insurance policy.

    FGU Insurance denied her claim, stating that Laingo should have filed the claim within three calendar
    monthsfrom the death of Rheozel as required under a provision in the insurance.

    Laingo filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with the RTC against BPI and FGU Insurance.

    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

    The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, holding that the prescriptive period of 90 days shall
    commencefrom the time of death of the insured and not from the knowledge of the beneficiary. Since
    the insurance claimwas filed more than 90 days from the death of the insured, the case must be
    dismissed.
    COURT OF APPEALS

    The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court, holding that Laingo could not be expected to
    do anobligation which she did not know existed, and that she was not a party to the insurance contract
    entered intobetween Rheozel and petitioners. Thus, she could not be bound by the 90-day stipulation.
    MR denied.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not Laingo, as named beneficiary who had no knowledge of the existence of the
    insurancecontract, is bound by the three-calendar-month deadline for filing a written notice of claim
    upon the death ofthe insured. (WON Laingo, who had no knowledge of the insurance coverage, is bound
    by the three-monthdeadline for filing of claim)

    SUPREME COURT

    NO. Since petitioners did not notify her of the insurance coverage, her lack of knowledge made it
    impossiblefor her to fulfill the condition set forth in the insurance contract.

    BPI offered a deposit savings account with life and disability insurance coverage to its customers. BPI
    acted asagent of FGU Insurance with respect to the insurance feature of its own marketed product.
    Under the law, anagent is one who binds himself to render some service or to do something in
    representation of another.

    In

    Doles v. Angeles,

    we held that the basis of an agency is representation. The question of whether an agencyhas been
    created is ordinarily a question which may be established in the same way as any other fact, eitherby
    direct or circumstantial evidence. The question is ultimately one of intention. Agency may even be
    impliedfrom the words and conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case. For an
    agency toarise, it is not necessary that the principal personally encounter the third person with whom
    the agent interacts.The law in fact contemplates impersonal dealings where the principal need not
    personally know or meet thethird person with whom the agent transacts: precisely, the purpose of
    agency is to extend the personality of theprincipal through the facility of

    You might also like