Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 757 views

    231 Finman Assurance Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the delay in payment of insurance proceeds. An insurance company, Finman General Assurance Corp., refused to pay an insurance claim filed by Usiphil, Inc. for fire damage to insured properties. The trial court found in favor of Usiphil and ordered Finman to pay the insurance proceeds plus 24% annual interest until fully paid, due to the delay in payment. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, as Finman failed to pay within the time limits specified in the insurance policy and relevant laws, which provide for interest penalties in cases of unreasonable delay of payment.

    Copyright:

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

    231 Finman Assurance Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
    757 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the delay in payment of insurance proceeds. An insurance company, Finman General Assurance Corp., refused to pay an insurance claim filed by Usiphil, Inc. for fire damage to insured properties. The trial court found in favor of Usiphil and ordered Finman to pay the insurance proceeds plus 24% annual interest until fully paid, due to the delay in payment. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, as Finman failed to pay within the time limits specified in the insurance policy and relevant laws, which provide for interest penalties in cases of unreasonable delay of payment.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    231 Finman Assurance 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?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding the delay in payment of insurance proceeds. An insurance company, Finman General Assurance Corp., refused to pay an insurance claim filed by Usiphil, Inc. for fire damage to insured properties. The trial court found in favor of Usiphil and ordered Finman to pay the insurance proceeds plus 24% annual interest until fully paid, due to the delay in payment. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, as Finman failed to pay within the time limits specified in the insurance policy and relevant laws, which provide for interest penalties in cases of unreasonable delay of payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    757 views2 pages

    231 Finman Assurance Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the delay in payment of insurance proceeds. An insurance company, Finman General Assurance Corp., refused to pay an insurance claim filed by Usiphil, Inc. for fire damage to insured properties. The trial court found in favor of Usiphil and ordered Finman to pay the insurance proceeds plus 24% annual interest until fully paid, due to the delay in payment. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, as Finman failed to pay within the time limits specified in the insurance policy and relevant laws, which provide for interest penalties in cases of unreasonable delay of payment.

    Copyright:

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

    Delay in Payment of Insurance Proceeds

    Finman General Assurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals


    G.R. No. 138737 July 12, 2001

    FACTS:
    Usiphil, Inc. obtained a fire insurance policy from Finman General Assurance Corp.
    then doing business in the name of Summa Insurance Corp.). Sometime in 1982, Usiphil
    filed with Finman an insurance claim for the loss of the insured properties due to fire.
    Despite several demands by Usiphil, Finman refused to pay the insurance claim on the
    grund that the same could not be allowed because Usiphil failed to comply with a condition
    in the policy regarding the submission of certain documents to prove the loss. Thus,
    Usiphil was constraint to file a complaint against Finman for the unpaid insurance claim.
    After trial, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Usiphil, and ordered Finman to
    pay Usiphil the amount of the insurance proceeds plus a 24% interest rate per annum
    until the judgment proceeds is fully paid.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not there is a delay in the payment of the Inusrance proceeds.

    RULING:

    Yes

    Under Section 244, a prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in payment of the
    claim is created by the failure of the insurer to pay the claim within the time fixed in both
    Sections 243 and 244. Further, Section 29 of the policy itself provides for the payment of
    such interest:

    29. Settlement of claim clause. The amount of any loss or damage for which
    the company may be liable, under this policy shall be paid within thirty days after proof
    of loss is received by the company and ascertainment of the loss or damage is made
    either in an agreement between the insured and the company or by arbitration; but if
    such ascertainment is not had or made within sixty days after such receipt by the
    company of the proof of loss, then the loss or damage shall be paid within ninety days
    after such receipt. Refusal or failure to pay the loss or damage within the time
    prescribed herein will entitle the assured to collect interest on the proceeds of the
    policy for the duration of the delay at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed by the
    Monetary Board, unless such failure or refusal to pay is based on the grounds (sic)
    that the claim is fraudulent.
    The policy itself obliges petitioner to pay the insurance claim within thirty days after
    proof of loss and ascertainment of the loss made in an agreement between private
    respondent and petitioner. In this case, as found by the CA, petitioner and private
    respondent signed the agreement (Exhibit E) indicating that the amount due private
    respondent was P842,683.40 on April 2, 1985. Petitioner thus had until May 2, 1985 to
    pay private respondents insurance. For its failure to do so, the CA and the trial court
    rightfully directed petitioner to pay, inter alia, 24% interest per annum in accordance with
    the above quoted provisions.

    You might also like