Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Villacorta Vs Insurance Commission

    Uploaded by

    Kate Hizon
    The Supreme Court found the insurer liable for the total loss of the insured vehicle. Jewel Villcorta filed an insurance claim after her vehicle was extensively damaged in an accident while being repaired at a shop. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the driver was unauthorized. The Court ruled that the unlawful taking of the vehicle without the owner's consent triggered the theft clause, making the insurer liable regardless of the driver's authorization. It held that entrusting the vehicle to the shop impliedly authorized employees to drive it for legitimate purposes, so the driver was authorized at the time of the accident.

    Copyright:

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

    Villacorta Vs Insurance Commission

    Uploaded by

    Kate Hizon
    52 views1 page
    The Supreme Court found the insurer liable for the total loss of the insured vehicle. Jewel Villcorta filed an insurance claim after her vehicle was extensively damaged in an accident while being repaired at a shop. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the driver was unauthorized. The Court ruled that the unlawful taking of the vehicle without the owner's consent triggered the theft clause, making the insurer liable regardless of the driver's authorization. It held that entrusting the vehicle to the shop impliedly authorized employees to drive it for legitimate purposes, so the driver was authorized at the time of the accident.

    Original Title

    07. Villacorta vs Insurance Commission

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court found the insurer liable for the total loss of the insured vehicle. Jewel Villcorta filed an insurance claim after her vehicle was extensively damaged in an accident while being repaired at a shop. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the driver was unauthorized. The Court ruled that the unlawful taking of the vehicle without the owner's consent triggered the theft clause, making the insurer liable regardless of the driver's authorization. It held that entrusting the vehicle to the shop impliedly authorized employees to drive it for legitimate purposes, so the driver was authorized at the time of the accident.

    Copyright:

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

    Villacorta Vs Insurance Commission

    Uploaded by

    Kate Hizon
    The Supreme Court found the insurer liable for the total loss of the insured vehicle. Jewel Villcorta filed an insurance claim after her vehicle was extensively damaged in an accident while being repaired at a shop. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the driver was unauthorized. The Court ruled that the unlawful taking of the vehicle without the owner's consent triggered the theft clause, making the insurer liable regardless of the driver's authorization. It held that entrusting the vehicle to the shop impliedly authorized employees to drive it for legitimate purposes, so the driver was authorized at the time of the accident.

    Copyright:

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

    JEWEL VILLACORTA, assisted by her husband, GUERRERO VILLACORTA, 

    petitioner,
    vs.
    THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.
    G.R. No. L-54171. October 28, 1980.
    TEEHANKEE, Acting C.J.

    DOCTRINE:
    The unlawful taking of an insured personal property, i.e. car, puts into operation the theft clause of the insurance
    policy and not the authorized driver clause. Hence, it is irrelevant whether at the time of loss, the same is driver by
    an “authorized driver.”

    FACTS:

    Jewel Villcorta (insured) filed a claim for total loss with Empire Insurance Company under its comprehensive motor
    car insurance policy. The policy covers losses from own damage or theft and third party liability. The claim was on
    account of the extensive damages sustained by the insured vehicle when it figured in a collision while being used by
    residents of Sunday Machine Works, Inc. The car was delivered by the insured to the latter for general check-up and
    repairs, and the insured’s car was taken without his knowledge or consent. The insurer claimed that the loss was not
    covered since the person then driving was not authorized in violation of the “Authorized Driver” clause.

    Issue/s:

    Should Empire Insurance Company be held liable for the total loss of the
    insured vehicle?

    HELD – YES.

    The Supreme Court found the insurer liable for the total loss of the insured vehicle. It held that where the insured’s
    car is wrongfully taken without the insured’s consent from the car service and repair shop to whom it had been
    entrusted for check-up and repairs (assuming that such taking was for a joy ride, in the course of which it was totally
    smashed in an accident), respondent insurer is liable and must pay insured for the total loss of the insured vehicle
    under the theft clause of the policy.

    The SC here held that the car was being driven by an “authorized driver” at the time that the accident happened, for
    upon entrusting the keys of her car to the repair shop, the latter and its employees were presumed to have been
    permitted to drive the car for legitimate purposes, e.g. test driving. That that car was taken for unauthorized purposes
    in violation of the trust reposed by the insured will not bar recovery.

    The Court also said that it was irrelevant whether the driver was authorized or not since it is the “theft” clause that
    applies. It held that where a car is unlawfully and wrongfully taken by some people, be they employees of the car
    shop or not to whom it had been entrusted, and taken on a long trip without the owner’s consent or knowledge, such
    taking constitutes or partakes of the nature of theft.

    You might also like