INSURANCE - SUBROGATION Coastwise vs CA F: Molasses were to be shipped, and it arrived in bad condition.

Insurer then paid the consignee its claim of P700,000, then insurer sued the carrier. H: Payment by the insurer to the insured operated as an equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which the latter may have against the third party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any private of contract or upon written assignment of, claim. Maglana vs Consolacion (same doctrine as Malayan below) Cebu Shipyard vs William Lines (same doctrine as Coastwise vs CA above) Pioneer Insurance vs CA F: Lim (insured) bought aircrafts from JDA (payable in installments). Pioneer (insurer) is its surety in its acquisition of aircrafts. Pioneer then had its surety contract reinsured with another insurance company. Upon default, the reinsurer paid Pioneer. H: A reinsurer, on payment of a loss acquires the same rights by subrogation as are acquired in similar cases where the original insurer pays a loss. In this case, Pioneer has no more cause of action against Lim because the reinsurer is subrogated to the rights of Pioneer (insurer) upon payment to Pioneer its claims. Manila Mahogany vs CA F: Insureds car got into an acceded with a San Miguel truck. Insurer paid insureds claim. Insurer then sued San Miguel. Defense of San Miguel: it paid the insured P4,500 and insured executed release of claim in favor of San Miguel. H: should the insured, after receiving payment from the insurer, release the wrongdoer who caused the loss, the insurer loses his rights against the latter. But in such a case, the insurer will be entitled to recover from the insured whatever it has paid to the latter, unless the release was made with the consent of the insurer

Firemans Fund vs Jamila (same doctrine as Coastwise vs CA above) Philamgen vs CA F: Coca-Cola (insured) loaded cases of coke bottled on a vessel owned by Felman. The vessel sank. Philamgen (insurer) paid coke P744,250, then sued Felman. Defense of Felman: the insured breached implied warranty when it stated that ship is seaworthy, when in fact it was not.

H: Even if the insured breached the implied warranty in the insurance policy that the ship is seaworthy, once the insurer pays the insured, the right of subrogation attaches in favor of the insurer. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance vs Macondray F: 218 cartons of meds were to be shipped and was insured with St. Paul. Upon arrival, goods were in bad condition. Hence, insurer paid the consignee its $1,134 claim. Insurer in turn sued the insurance company. H: Insurer, as subrogee, can only recover the amount recoverable by the insured from the carrier. Since the contract of carriage (between insured and carrier) limited the liability of the carrier to P500/package, the insurance company can only recover as much. Malayan Insurance Co vs CA F: In this case of collision between a jeep and a bus, the TC held (1) the owner of jeep, (2) employer of jeepney driver and (3) insurer of jeep solidarily liable to the passenger of the bus. H: TC erred in holding the insurer solidarily liable with the tortfeasors. Solidarily liability means that the entire obligation can be enforced against any of those adjudged which is contrary to the nature of insurance. Fedex vs CA F: Cartons were shipped from US to Mla. Upon arrival, they were in bad condition. Hence, insurer paid the consignee its claim of $39,339. Insurer then sued Fedex, the carrier. H: Insurer cannot recover from carrier Fedex because right of action was barred because neither the insured, nor the insurer filed a written notice/complaint within the period required in the Airway Bill. Lorenzo Shipping vs Chubb & Sons, Inc. F: Steel pipes were to be shipped. Upon arrival, they were in bad condition, hence insurer paid the claim of the consignee of $104,151. Insurer then sued the carrier. Defense of carrier: insurance company is foreign, therefore no capacity to sue as they are not allowed to do business in the Phils. H: While foreign companies are prohibited to maintain actions in Courts, they are not prohibited from doing single acts of business. Hence, they have cause of action in this case arising from 1 insurance policy. FGU vs CA (supra no mention of subrogation here)