Soliman, National Leather, Edralin

Soliman v.
US Life 104 PHIL 1046 Facts: US Life issued a 20yr endowment life policy on the joint lives of Patricio Soliman and his wife Rosario, each of them being the beneficiary of the other. In March 1949, the spouses were informed that the premium for Jan 1949 was still unpaid notwithstanding that the 31-day grace period had already expired, and they were furnished at the same time long-form health certificates for the reinstatement of the policies. In Aprl 1949, they submitted the health certificates and paid the premium due up to said month. In Jan. 1950, Rosario died of acute dilatation of the heart, and thereafter Patricio filed a claim for the proceeds of the insurance. US Life denied the claim and it filed a case for rescission on the ground that the health certificates failed to disclose that Rosario had been suffering from bronchial asthma for three years prior to the submission. Patricio claims that the answers to the questions in the health certificates were made by US Lifes agent. Issue: WON the policy can be rescinded. Held: YES. The spouses in allowing the agent to answer some of the blanks in the certificates and afterwards stamping their signature thereon are presumed to have at least acquiesced in and approved all that had bee stated therein in their behalf.
National Leather vs. us life

On April 14, 1939, plaintiff insured with the defendant the life of Pedro Alejandrino for P5,000 under a 10-year term non-participating policy in consideration of the payment to the defendant, in advance, of the sum of $23.11 as quarterly premium beginning April 14, 1939, and the payment of a like sum every quarter, thereafter, also in advance, for a period of 10 years or until the prior death of said Pedro Alejandrino. The stipulated quarterly premiums on the policy were regularly paid up to October 14, 1941, when the last quarterly premium payment was made, covering the period from that date to January 14, 1942. Thereafter no more premiums were paid, it appearing that, because defendant was an American corporation, its branch office in Manila was closed when that city was occupied by the Japanese forces on January 2, 1942, and it had remained closed during the entire period of enemy occupation. Pedro Alejandrino died on September 23, 1943, that is, beyond the period covered by the premiums paid by the insured. But just the same, after the liberation of Manila in 1945, plaintiff, as the beneficiary named in the policy, made a claim for the proceeds thereof and tendered a check for P323.54, the total unpaid premiums from January 14, 1942, to October 14, 1943. Defendant, however, rejected the claim and returned the check on the ground that the policy had ceased to be in force as of January 14, 1942, for non-payment of the stipulated premiums. Issue: WON a life insurance policy lapses pursuant to its terms because of non payment of the stipulated premium when such non-payment occurred at a time when the insurer and the assured were separated by the lines of war. Held: Yes. In determining the effect of non-payment of premiums occasioned by war, we follow the United States rule which declares that the contract is not merely suspended, but is abrogated by reason of non-payment of premiums, since the time of the payments is peculiarly of the essence of the contract. The doctrine of the revival of contracts suspended during the war is one based on considerations of equity and justice, and cannot be invoked to revive a contract which it would be unjust or inequitable to revive. It should be noted that the parties contracted not only for peacetime conditions but also for times of war, because the policies contained provisions applicable expressly to wartime days. The logical inference, therefore, is that the parties contemplated uninterrupted operation of the contract even if armed conflict should ensue. The annual premium due is not a debt. It is not an obligation upon which the insurer can maintain an action against insured; nor is its settlement governed by the strict rule controlling payment of debts. The fact that it is payable annually or semi-annually, or at any other stipulated time, does not of itself constitute a promise to pay, either express or implied. In case of non-payment, the policy is forfeited, except so far as the forfeiture may be saved by agreement, by waiver,
estoppel, or by statute. The payment of the premium is entirely optional, while a debt may be enforced at law, and the fact that the premium is agreed to be paid is without force, in the absence of an unqualified and absolute agreement to pay a specified sum at some certain time. In the ordinary policy there is no promise to pay, but it is optional with the insured whether he will continue the policy or forfeit it. Edralin v. Insular Life: Insured died as a result of her inhalation of poisonous gas from the cooking gas stove in the kitchen at her residence. Accidental or suicide? The basic instinct of self-preservation militates against the commission of suicide. It is incumbent upon a party alleging suicide as a defense, especially in actions involving insurance policies to prove it by clear and convincing proof. Failure to prove, must pay claim

Soliman, National Leather, Edralin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soliman, National Leather, Edralin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soliman, National Leather, Edralin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soliman v.

National Leather vs. us life

You might also like