Insurance Case Digest | Perez v CA
Perez v CA
323 SCRA 613
Jan. 28, 2000
Facts:
Primitivo Perez had been insured with BF Lifeman Insurance Corp. An agent of the insurance corp Rodolfo Lalog, visited Perez and convinced him to apply for additional insurance coverage ot avail of the ongoing promotional discount if the premium were paid annually. On the same day the application form for the additional insurance coverage was accomplished, Petitioner Virginia Perez, Primitivo’s wife paid for it. The receipt issued by Lalog indicated the amount received was a deposit.
Lalog forwarded the application to the office of the company at Gumaca, Quezon which office was supposed to forward th papers to Manila office. On Nov. 25, 1987, Perez died in an accident. At the tie o f his death, his application papers were still with the Gamaca office. Lalog personally brought the papers to the Manila office. It was only on Nov. 27, 1987 that said papers were received in Manila without knowing that Perez died, the insurance company approved the application and issued the policy.
Petitioner went to Manila to claim the benefits under the insurance policies of the deceased but the company refused hence the case at bar.
Issue:
Whether or not the insurance company is liable to pay on the ground that the contract was perfected?
Held:
No, it was not perfected. Consent must be manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute.
The application was subject to the acceptance of the insurance company. Its perfection was further conditioned upon compliance with the requisites stated in the application form that there shall be no contract of insurance unless and until a policy is issued and that said policy shall not take effect until the premium has been paid and policy delivered to and accepted while in good health.
The assent of respondent was not given when it merely received the application form and all supporting papers. Its assent was given when it issues a corresponding policy to the applicant. It is only when the applicant pays the premium and receives and accepts the policy while he is in good health that the contract is deemed to have been perfected. In the case at bar, there was absolutely no way the acceptance of the application could have been communicated to the applicant for the latter to accept inasmuch as the applicant was already dead.
If you like this, check out http://www.oflodor.com/auto-insurance/
Related posts:
- Insurance Case Digest | Great Pacific Life Assurance Co. v Court of Appeals
- Insurance Case Digest | Development Bank of the Philippines v CA
- Case Digest | The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd v. Ebredo
- Case Digest | Araneta v. Perez
- Auto Insurance: Insights
- Property Case Digest | Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. Wilson
- Case Digest | Aguirre v. Pheng
- Case Digest | Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Company
- Property Case Digest | Josefa Fabia v. David
- Case Digest | Sps. Gulla v. Heirs of A. Labrador
