[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
3K views1 page

Insurance Policy Renewal Dispute

UCPB General Insurance Co. sued Masagana Telemart over five insurance policies covering Masagana's properties. The policies were effective from May 22, 1991 to May 22, 1992. However, Masagana's properties were destroyed by fire on June 13, 1992. Masagana then tendered renewal premium payments on July 13, 1992, which UCPB initially accepted but later returned, denying the renewal and claim. The issue is whether Section 77 of the Insurance Code, requiring prepayment of premiums for a policy to be valid, must be strictly applied despite UCPB's practice of granting credit terms for premium payments. The court held that while Section 77 requires prepayment, an insurer-approved

Uploaded by

ladygeorgina
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views1 page

Insurance Policy Renewal Dispute

UCPB General Insurance Co. sued Masagana Telemart over five insurance policies covering Masagana's properties. The policies were effective from May 22, 1991 to May 22, 1992. However, Masagana's properties were destroyed by fire on June 13, 1992. Masagana then tendered renewal premium payments on July 13, 1992, which UCPB initially accepted but later returned, denying the renewal and claim. The issue is whether Section 77 of the Insurance Code, requiring prepayment of premiums for a policy to be valid, must be strictly applied despite UCPB's practice of granting credit terms for premium payments. The court held that while Section 77 requires prepayment, an insurer-approved

Uploaded by

ladygeorgina
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. -vsMasagana Telemart, inc. G.R. No.

137172, 04 April 2001 FACTS Plaintiff [herein Respondent] obtained from defendant [herein Petitioner] five (5) insurance policies on its properties. All five (5) policies reflect on their face the effectivity term: "from 4:00 P.M. of 22 May 1991 to 4:00 P.M. of 22 May 1992." On June 13, 1992, plaintiffs properties were razed by fire. On July 13, 1992, plaintiff tendered, and defendant accepted, five (5) Equitable Bank Manager's Checks as renewal premium payments for which Official Receipt Direct Premium was issued by defendant. Masagana made its formal demand for indemnification for the burned insured properties. On the same day, defendant returned the five (5) manager's checks stating in its letter) that it was rejecting Masagana's claim on the following grounds: "a) Said policies expired last May 22, 1992 and were not renewed for another term; b) Defendant had put plaintiff and its alleged broker on notice of non-renewal earlier; and c) The properties covered by the said policies were burned in a fire that took place last June 13, 1992, or before tender of premium payment." ISSUE Whether Section 77 of the Insurance Code of 1978 (P.D. No. 1460) must be strictly applied to Petitioner's advantage despite its practice of granting a 60- to 90-day credit term for the payment of premiums. HELD Section 77 of the Insurance Code of 1978 provides: SECTION 77. An insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies. While the import of Section 77 is that prepayment of premiums is strictly required as a condition to the validity of the contract, We are not prepared to rule that the request to make installment payments duly approved by the insurer would prevent the entire contract of insurance from going into effect despite payment and acceptance of the initial premium or first installment. So is an understanding to allow insured to pay premiums in installments not so prescribed. At the very least, both parties should be deemed in estoppel to question the arrangement they have voluntarily accepted.

You might also like