Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 719 views

    Perez vs. CA and BF Lifeman Insurance

    Uploaded by

    Laika Corral
    Primitivo Perez had an existing life insurance policy and applied for an additional $50,000 policy through his insurance agent. He paid the premium but died in an accident before the additional application was approved. The insurance company denied the additional death benefit claim, arguing the additional policy was not perfected at the time of death. The Court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that a valid insurance contract requires consent from both parties, which did not exist since Perez died before the insurance company could communicate approval of the additional application to him. As the approval came after his death, the conditions for perfecting the additional insurance contract were not fulfilled.

    Copyright:

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

    Perez vs. CA and BF Lifeman Insurance

    Uploaded by

    Laika Corral
    719 views2 pages
    Primitivo Perez had an existing life insurance policy and applied for an additional $50,000 policy through his insurance agent. He paid the premium but died in an accident before the additional application was approved. The insurance company denied the additional death benefit claim, arguing the additional policy was not perfected at the time of death. The Court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that a valid insurance contract requires consent from both parties, which did not exist since Perez died before the insurance company could communicate approval of the additional application to him. As the approval came after his death, the conditions for perfecting the additional insurance contract were not fulfilled.

    Original Title

    Perez vs. CA and BF Lifeman Insurance.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Primitivo Perez had an existing life insurance policy and applied for an additional $50,000 policy through his insurance agent. He paid the premium but died in an accident before the additional application was approved. The insurance company denied the additional death benefit claim, arguing the additional policy was not perfected at the time of death. The Court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that a valid insurance contract requires consent from both parties, which did not exist since Perez died before the insurance company could communicate approval of the additional application to him. As the approval came after his death, the conditions for perfecting the additional insurance contract were not fulfilled.

    Copyright:

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

    Perez vs. CA and BF Lifeman Insurance

    Uploaded by

    Laika Corral
    Primitivo Perez had an existing life insurance policy and applied for an additional $50,000 policy through his insurance agent. He paid the premium but died in an accident before the additional application was approved. The insurance company denied the additional death benefit claim, arguing the additional policy was not perfected at the time of death. The Court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that a valid insurance contract requires consent from both parties, which did not exist since Perez died before the insurance company could communicate approval of the additional application to him. As the approval came after his death, the conditions for perfecting the additional insurance contract were not fulfilled.

    Copyright:

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

    Virginia Perez vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS and BF LIFEMAN INSURANCE CORPORATION


    G.R. No. 112329           January 28, 2000

    Facts:
    Primitivo B. Perez had been insured with the BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation. He was convinced by
    the agent of the insurance company to apply for additional insurance coverage of P50,000.00. Thus, he
    paid for the amount of the policy and he was issued a receipt thereof.

    The agent forwarded the application for additional insurance of Perez to the branch office in Quezon
    Province of BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation and was to be forwarded to its main office in Manila.

    On November 25, 1987, Perez died in an accident. At the time of his death, his application papers for
    the additional insurance of P50,000.00 were still with the Gumaca office. It was only on November 27,
    1987 that said papers were received in Manila.

    Without knowing that Perez died on November 25, 1987, BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation approved
    the application and issued the corresponding policy for the P50,000.00.

    Petitioner Virginia Perez went to Manila to claim the benefits under the insurance policies of the
    deceased. She was paid P40,000.00 under the first insurance policy but the insurance company refused
    to pay the claim under the additional policy coverage of P50,000.00.The insurance company maintained
    that the insurance for P50,000.00 had not been perfected at the time of the death of Primitivo Perez.

    Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the proceeds of the additional policy.

    Ruling:
    NO. One of the elements of a valid contract is consent. Consent must be manifested by the meeting of
    the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The
    offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute.

    In this case, when Primitivo filed an application for insurance and submitted the results of his medical
    examination, his application was subject to the acceptance of private respondent BF Lifeman Insurance
    Corporation.

    When Primitivo died on November 25, 1987, his application papers for additional insurance coverage
    were still with the branch office of respondent corporation in Gumaca and it was only two days later
    when the agent personally delivered the application papers to the head office in Manila. Consequently,
    there was absolutely no way the acceptance of the application could have been communicated to the
    applicant for the latter to accept inasmuch as the applicant at the time was already dead.

    Moreover, the following conditions were imposed by the respondent company for the perfection of the
    contract of insurance: (a) a policy must have been issued; (b) the premiums paid; and (c) the policy
    must have been delivered to and accepted by the applicant while he is in good health.
    The suspensive condition was that the policy must have been delivered and accepted by the applicant
    while he is in good health. There was non-fulfillment of the condition since the applicant was already
    dead at the time the policy was issued. Hence, the non-fulfillment of the condition resulted in the non-
    perfection of the contract.

    A contract of insurance, like other contracts, must be assented to by both parties either in person or by
    their agents. So long as an application for insurance has not been either accepted or rejected, it is
    merely an offer or proposal to make a contract. The contract, to be binding from the date of application,
    must have been a completed contract.

    You might also like