0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
123 Ansichten6 Seiten
1. The document discusses two key issues: (1) whether there was estafa involved in the insurance claim, and (2) whether the claim was filed within a reasonable period of time as required by the policy.
2. For the first issue, the document argues that the elements of estafa are not present based on jurisprudence which requires juridical possession, which did not exist in this case.
3. For the second issue, the document cites jurisprudence that immediate notice in an insurance policy means within a reasonable time, and that no period was specified in the policy for filing a claim. Therefore, the insured filing a claim would not be untimely.
1. The document discusses two key issues: (1) whether there was estafa involved in the insurance claim, and (2) whether the claim was filed within a reasonable period of time as required by the policy.
2. For the first issue, the document argues that the elements of estafa are not present based on jurisprudence which requires juridical possession, which did not exist in this case.
3. For the second issue, the document cites jurisprudence that immediate notice in an insurance policy means within a reasonable time, and that no period was specified in the policy for filing a claim. Therefore, the insured filing a claim would not be untimely.
1. The document discusses two key issues: (1) whether there was estafa involved in the insurance claim, and (2) whether the claim was filed within a reasonable period of time as required by the policy.
2. For the first issue, the document argues that the elements of estafa are not present based on jurisprudence which requires juridical possession, which did not exist in this case.
3. For the second issue, the document cites jurisprudence that immediate notice in an insurance policy means within a reasonable time, and that no period was specified in the policy for filing a claim. Therefore, the insured filing a claim would not be untimely.
What needs to be proved/disproved 1. That there was no Estafa. 2. That the claim was filed within the period at a reasonable time.
1. Fact: According to the Notice of Denial, or letter of denial dated, 11, June 2014, the incident was caused the loss was estafa. Law: It is not estafa, because in estafa, it is necessary to have juridical possession of the property (Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109595, 27 April 2000) to wit:
Have the foregoing elements been met in the case at bar? We find the first element absent. When the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. 24 Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. 25 In this case, petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller, both being mere bank employees.
Application: in our case (for purposes of the case), there is no Juridical possession since the person was only allowed to hold the vehicle, similar to the case of the mechanic shop from which a vehicle was stolen. There is no juridical possession in this case, since the transferee DOES NOT have the right over the thing which he may set up as against the owner. He was merely allowed to hold the property but if the owner asks that the property be given back, the owned may validly ask that the same be given to him.
2. The provision in the policy states, that in case of theft or other criminal act, which may give rise to a claim under the this policy, the Insured shall file immediate notice to the Police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the Offender. There is no period within which to report the claim. Law: E.M. Bachrach v. British American Assurance Company, G.R. No. L-5715. With reference to the sixth assignment of error above noted, to wit: That the court erred in holding that the policy of insurance was in force at the time of said fire and that the acts or omissions on the part of the insured which caused or tended to cause a forfeiture of the policy were waived by the defendant, the lower court, in discussing this question, said:
Regardless of the question whether the plaintiff's letter of April 20 (Exhibit B) was a sufficient compliance with the requirement that he furnish notice of loss, the fact remains that on the following day the insurers replied by a letter (Exhibit C) declaring that the "policies were null and void," and in effect denying liability. It is well settled by a preponderance of authorities that such a denial is a waiver of notice of loss, because if the "policies are null and void," the furnishing of such notice would be vain and useless. (13 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 347, 348, 349.) Besides, "immediate notice" is construed to mean only within a reasonable time.
Much the same may be said as to the objection that the insured failed to furnish to the insurers his books and papers or to present a detailed statement to the "juez municipal," in accordance with article 404 of the Code of Commerce. The last-named provision is similar to one appearing in many American policies requiring a certificate from a magistrate nearest the loss regarding the circumstance thereof. A denial of liability on other grounds waives this requirement (O'Niel vs. Buffalo Fire Insurance Company, 3 N. Y., 122; Peoria Marine Ins. Co. vs. Whitehill, 25 Ill., 382), as well as that relating to the production of books and papers (Ga. Home Ins. Co. vs. Goode & Co., 95 Va., 751; 66 Jur. Civ., 16). Besides, the insured might have had difficulty in attempting to comply with this clause, for there is no longer an official here with the title of "juez municipal."
Besides the foregoing reasons, it may be added that there was no requirement in the policy in question that such notice be given. Application: In our case, there was actually no requirement in the insurance policy that provides within what period the claim should be made. In fact what is provided in the policy is that Insured shall file immediate notice to the Police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the Offender. Precisely what XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, he reported the same to the Police, and immediately notified the insurance company
Memorandum of Law For XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (for the Carnapping Case)
1. Fact: That there is carnapping: Law: People v. Lagat G.R. No. 187044, 14 September 2011 Lagat and Palalay have been charged and convicted of the crime of qualified carnapping under Republic Act. No. 6539 or the Anti- Carnapping Act of 1972. Section 2 of the Act defines carnapping and motor vehicle as follows:
Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latters consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
Motor vehicle is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 are the following:
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; 2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; 3. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and 4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.
The records of this case show that all the elements of carnapping are present and were proven during trial.
All elements are present in this case if we present the facts accordingly.