Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Aboitiz Shipping V Insurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Leizandra Pugong
    This case involves a dispute over insurance subrogation rights between Aboitiz Shipping and Insurance Company of North America (ICNA) regarding damaged cargo. ICNA paid an insurance claim to the cargo owner for water damage. ICNA then sought to recover from Aboitiz, the carrier, using subrogation rights. The courts ruled that: 1) ICNA could claim under the right of subrogation having stepped into the shoes of the cargo owner after paying the insurance claim, and 2) Aboitiz was liable for the water damage due to failing to prove it exercised the required extraordinary diligence as a common carrier.

    Copyright:

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

    Aboitiz Shipping V Insurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Leizandra Pugong
    38 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over insurance subrogation rights between Aboitiz Shipping and Insurance Company of North America (ICNA) regarding damaged cargo. ICNA paid an insurance claim to the cargo owner for water damage. ICNA then sought to recover from Aboitiz, the carrier, using subrogation rights. The courts ruled that: 1) ICNA could claim under the right of subrogation having stepped into the shoes of the cargo owner after paying the insurance claim, and 2) Aboitiz was liable for the water damage due to failing to prove it exercised the required extraordinary diligence as a common carrier.

    Original Title

    21. Aboitiz Shipping v Insurance Company

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over insurance subrogation rights between Aboitiz Shipping and Insurance Company of North America (ICNA) regarding damaged cargo. ICNA paid an insurance claim to the cargo owner for water damage. ICNA then sought to recover from Aboitiz, the carrier, using subrogation rights. The courts ruled that: 1) ICNA could claim under the right of subrogation having stepped into the shoes of the cargo owner after paying the insurance claim, and 2) Aboitiz was liable for the water damage due to failing to prove it exercised the required extraordinary diligence as a common carrier.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    38 views3 pages

    Aboitiz Shipping V Insurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Leizandra Pugong
    This case involves a dispute over insurance subrogation rights between Aboitiz Shipping and Insurance Company of North America (ICNA) regarding damaged cargo. ICNA paid an insurance claim to the cargo owner for water damage. ICNA then sought to recover from Aboitiz, the carrier, using subrogation rights. The courts ruled that: 1) ICNA could claim under the right of subrogation having stepped into the shoes of the cargo owner after paying the insurance claim, and 2) Aboitiz was liable for the water damage due to failing to prove it exercised the required extraordinary diligence as a common carrier.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    ABOITIZ SHIPPING VS INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

    G.R. No. Date: Ponente

    TOPIC RIGHT OF SUBROGATION


    (per syllabus/book)
    TICKLER THE RIGHT of subrogation attaches upon payment by
    (as in the case) the insurer of the insurance claims by the assured. As
    subrogee, the insurer steps into the shoes of the
    assured and may exercise only those rights that the
    assured may have against the wrongdoer who
    caused the damage.

    RECIT READY – SUMMARY (OPTIONAL)

    FACTS:
     MSAS Cargo International Limited and/or Associated and/or Subsidiary
    Companies (MSAS) procured a marine insurance policy from respondent
    ICNA UK Limited of London. The insurance was for a transshipment of
    certain wooden work tools and workbenches purchased for the consignee
    Science Teaching Improvement Project (STIP).
     ICNA issued an "all-risk" open marine policy stating “This Company, in
    consideration of a premium as agreed and subject to the terms and
    conditions printed hereon, does insure for MSAS Cargo International Limited
    &/or Associated &/or Subsidiary Companies on behalf of the title holder: -
    Loss, if any, payable to the Assured or order.”
     The cargo, packed inside one container van was shipped from Germany.
    The ship arrived and docked at Manila International Container Port where
    the container van was offloaded and received by Aboitiz.
     The bill of lading issued by Aboitiz contained “grounded outside
    warehouse”. It was then subsequently transferred to another container van
    en route to Cebu.
     The shipment upon arriving was noted by Aboitiz checker that the bottom
    of the crates were damaged. Subsequently, the cargoes were withdrawn
    by consignee Science Teachng Improvement Project and was delivered to
    the school, Don Bosco Technical High School.
     Aboitiz, a few days later received a call from the consignee School
    informing them that the cargoes sustained water damage.
     The consignee contacted Philippine office of ICNA for insurance claims. The
    consignee filed a formal claim with Aboitiz, wherein it refused to settle the
    claim. ICNA as the insurer, therafter, paid to the consignee the amount for
    the said cargoes. A subrogation receipt was duly signed by the consignee.
     ICNA formally informed Aboitiz of the claim and subrogation receipt
    executed in favor of ICNA. However, no reply was received from Aboitiz.

    RTC
    CA

    Petitioner [ALLEGATIONS] Respondent [ALLEGATIONS]

    ISSUE 1: Whether or not ICNA can claim under the right of subrogation.

    RULING 1: Yes. Respondent’s cause of action is founded on it being subrogated


    to the rights of the consignee of the damaged shipment. The right of subrogation
    springs from Article 2207 of the Civil Code, which states:
    IIf the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity
    from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong
    or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be
    subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the
    person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance
    company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall
    be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or
    injury.

    Payment by the insurer to the assured operates as an equitable assignment of all


    remedies the assured may have against the third party who caused the damage.
    Subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of
    contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon payment of
    the insurance claim by the insurer.

    Upon payment to the consignee of indemnity for damage to the insured goods,
    ICNA’s entitlement to subrogation equipped it with a cause of action against
    petitioner in case of a contractial breach of negligence.

    SC DOCTRINE
    FINAL DISPOSITION: Petitioner is thus liable for the water damage sustained by the
    goods due to its failure to satisfactorily prove that it exercised the extraordinary
    diligence required of common carriers.

    You might also like