Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Stokes Vs Malayan Feb 24 1984

    Uploaded by

    Alvin-Evelyn Guloy
    This document summarizes a court case between James Stokes and Malayan Insurance Co. regarding a car insurance claim. The court ruled that Stokes, a tourist from Ireland whose visa had expired, was not an "authorized driver" under the terms of the insurance policy since he did not have a Philippine driver's license as required by law. Therefore, Malayan Insurance Co. correctly denied the insurance claim. Additionally, the court found that Malayan Insurance Co. accepting insurance premium payments did not estop it from denying the claim, as acceptance of payments did not prevent the insurer from enforcing the valid terms of the insurance policy.

    Copyright:

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

    Stokes Vs Malayan Feb 24 1984

    Uploaded by

    Alvin-Evelyn Guloy
    90 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case between James Stokes and Malayan Insurance Co. regarding a car insurance claim. The court ruled that Stokes, a tourist from Ireland whose visa had expired, was not an "authorized driver" under the terms of the insurance policy since he did not have a Philippine driver's license as required by law. Therefore, Malayan Insurance Co. correctly denied the insurance claim. Additionally, the court found that Malayan Insurance Co. accepting insurance premium payments did not estop it from denying the claim, as acceptance of payments did not prevent the insurer from enforcing the valid terms of the insurance policy.

    Original Description:

    insurance principles

    Original Title

    Stokes vs Malayan Feb 24 1984

    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 between James Stokes and Malayan Insurance Co. regarding a car insurance claim. The court ruled that Stokes, a tourist from Ireland whose visa had expired, was not an "authorized driver" under the terms of the insurance policy since he did not have a Philippine driver's license as required by law. Therefore, Malayan Insurance Co. correctly denied the insurance claim. Additionally, the court found that Malayan Insurance Co. accepting insurance premium payments did not estop it from denying the claim, as acceptance of payments did not prevent the insurer from enforcing the valid terms of the insurance policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views1 page

    Stokes Vs Malayan Feb 24 1984

    Uploaded by

    Alvin-Evelyn Guloy
    This document summarizes a court case between James Stokes and Malayan Insurance Co. regarding a car insurance claim. The court ruled that Stokes, a tourist from Ireland whose visa had expired, was not an "authorized driver" under the terms of the insurance policy since he did not have a Philippine driver's license as required by law. Therefore, Malayan Insurance Co. correctly denied the insurance claim. Additionally, the court found that Malayan Insurance Co. accepting insurance premium payments did not estop it from denying the claim, as acceptance of payments did not prevent the insurer from enforcing the valid terms of the insurance policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    No. L-34768. February 24, 1984.

    *
    JAMES STOKES, as Attorney-in-Fact of Daniel Stephen Adolfson and DANIEL STEPHEN ADOLFSON,
    plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellant.
    Mercantile Law; Insurance; Nature of contract of insurance; Compliance with terms and conditions of contract, a
    condition precedent to right of recovery against insurer.—A contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity upon
    the terms and conditions specified therein. When the insurer is called upon to pay in case of loss or damage, he has
    the right to insist upon compliance with the terms of the contract. If the insured cannot bring himself within the
    terms and conditions of the contract, he is not entitled as a rule to recover for the loss or damage suffered. For the
    terms of the contract constitute the measure of the insurer’s liability, and compliance therewith is a condition
    precedent to the right of recovery. (Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Co., 30 Phil. 617.)
    Same; Same; “Authorized driver” clause, concept of; An Irish citizen whose 90-days tourist visa had expired, cannot
    recover on his car insurance policy, not being authorized to drive a motor vehicle without a Philippine driver’s
    license.—Under the “authorized driver” clause, an authorized driver must not only be permitted to drive by the
    insured. It is also essential that he is permitted under the law and regulations to drive the motor vehicle and is not
    disqualified from so doing under any enactment or regulation. At the time of the accident, Stokes had been in the
    Philippines for more than 90 days. Hence, under the law, he could not drive a motor vehicle without a Philippine
    driver’s license. He was therefore not an “authorized driver” under the terms of the insurance policy in question, and
    MALAYAN was right in denying the claim of the insured.
    _______________

    * FIRST DIVISION.
    767

    VOL. 127, FEBRUARY 24, 1984


    767
    Stokes vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.
    Same; Same; Premium; Estoppel, not a case of; Acceptance of insurance premium payments does not estop an
    insurer from interposing a valid defense under the terms of the insurance policy.—Acceptance of premium within
    the stipulated period for payment thereof, including the agreed period of grace, merely assures continued effectivity
    of the insurance policy in accordance with its terms. Such acceptance does not estop the insurer from interposing
    any valid defense under the terms of the insurance policy.
    Same; Same; Same; Same; Estoppel, concept of; Not applicable where insurance company in accepting premium
    payment was not guilty of any inequitable act or representation.—The principle of estoppel is an equitable principle
    rooted upon natural justice which prevents a person from going back on his own acts and representations to the
    prejudice of another whom he has led to rely upon them. The principle does not apply to the instant case. In
    accepting the premium payment of the insured, MALAYAN was not guilty of any inequitable act or representation.
    There is nothing inconsistent between acceptance of premium due under an insurance policy and the enforcement of
    its terms.
    APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.


         Rodrigo M. Nera for plaintiff appellees.
         Pio B. Salomon, Jr. for defendant-appellant. Stokes vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 127 SCRA 766, No. L-
    34768 February 24, 1984

    You might also like