Insurance Case Doctrines

Case	Issue	Doctrine
Whitegold Marine Services vs. Pioneer Insurance	w/n petitioner is engaged in insurance business.	A P & I Club is “a form of insurance against third party liability, where the third party is anyone other than the P & I Club and the members.” If this will be asked cite the requisites of insurance contract ;)
PhilamCare Health Systems vs CA	Whether answers made in good faith, where matters of opinion or judgment are called for, without intent to deceive will avoid a policy when they were untrue. Allegation kasi ng philam may concealment daw. ( hindi tlaga nya alam na highblood sya. Nahospitalize and eventually namatay sya dahil sa heart attack + complications)	NO. Where matters of opinion or judgment are called for, answers made in good faith and without intent to deceive will not avoid a policy even though they are untrue. Thus, although false, a representation of the expectation, intention, belief, opinion, or judgment of the insured will not avoid the policy if there is no actual fraud in inducing the acceptance of the risk, or its acceptance at a lower rate of premium, and this is likewise the rule although the statement is material to the risk, if the statement is obviously of the foregoing character, since in such case the insurer is not justified in relying upon such statement, but is obligated to make further inquiry.
Fortune Insurance Insurity Company vs CA,	Whether or not the General exceptions precluded the recovery of producer bank of the Philippines. (banks was insured by fortune then na rob ng “representative ng bank and driver”  eh sbi sa G.E. if robbery was perpetrated by the employees , it cannot recover)	Yes.  It was its intention to exclude and exempt from protection and coverage losses arising from dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal acts of persons granted or having unrestricted access to Producers' money or payroll. The robbers were considered as representative/employees of the bank.
Enriquez vs Sun Life Insurance of Canada	w/n the contract of insurance was perfected (si herrer kumuha ng insurance, napprove, umatras , namatay. No actual or constructive delivery n naganap. Tinamad ata  yung employee na isend yung policy.)	No. the contract for life annuity was not perfected because it was not proved that the acceptance came to the knowledge of the applicant. Acceptance made by letter or telegram does not bind the offer except from the time it came to his knowledge.- civil code art 1319 Doctrine: An acceptance of an offer of insurance not actually or constructively communicated to the proposer does not  make a contract of insurance.
Great Pacific Life Assurance Co. vs CA	Whether the binding deposit receipt constituted a temporary contract of the life insurance in question, and thus negate the claim that the insurance contract was perfected. (the father wants to insure the baby. Down payment was given to the agent. Agent issued a binding receipt. The insurance offer was rejected by the principal. The baby died.) *reason for rejection= disqualified due to age. 7 pataas lang yung pwede sa insurance na gusto ng tatay.	the binding deposit receipt is, manifestly, merely conditional and does not insure outright. Where an agreement is made between the applicant and the agent, no liability shall attach until the principal approves the risk and a receipt is given by the agent. The acceptance is merely conditional, and is subordinated to the act of the company in approving or rejecting the application.