1. PCDS v.

CA
- Where a car is admittedly, as in this case, unlawfully and wrongfully taken without the
owner’s consent or knowledge, such taking constitutes theft, and, therefore, it is the
“THEFT” clause, and not the “AUTHORIZED DRIVER” clause, that should apply.
2. Shafer v. Judge
- If an insurance policy insures directly against liability, the insurer’s liability accrues
immediately upon occurrence of the injury, and will not depend on the recovery of
judgment by the injured party against the insured.
3. Vda de Maglana v. Consolacion
- Where an insurance policy insures directly against liability, the insurer’s liability accrues
immediately upon the occurrence of the injury or even upon which the liability depends,
and does not depend on the recovery of judgment by the injured party against the insured.
4. Peza v Alikpala
- Whether the LTC agent was correct or not in his opinion that driver Amar had violated some
traffic regulation warranting confiscation of his license and issuance of a TVR in lieu thereof,
this would not alter the undisputed fact that Amar’s license had indeed been confiscated
and a TVR issued to him, and the TVR had already expired at the time that the vehicle being
operated by him killed two children by accident. Neither would proof of the renewal of
Amar’s license change the fact that it had really been earlier confiscated by the LTC agent.
5. Western Guaranty v. CA
- Contractual limitations of liability found in insurance contracts should be regarded by courts
with a jaundiced eye and extreme care and should be so construed as to preclude the
insurer from evading compliance with its just obligations.
6. Perla v. Ancheta
- Rules on claims under the “no­fault indemnity” provision where proof of fault or negligence
is not necessary for payment of any claim for death or injury to a passenger or a third party,
are established.
- The claim under the “no fault indemnity” provision lies against the insurer of the vehicle
where the occupant is riding. Claimant is not free to choose from which insurer he will claim
the “no fault indemnity.”
- The essence of “no fault indemnity” insurance - to provide victims of vehicular accidents or
their heirs immediate compensation pending final determination of who is responsible for
the accident and liable for the victims’ injuries or death.
7. Philam v. Auditor
- Reinsurance policy is a contract of indemnity one insurer makes with another to protect the
first insurer from a risk it has already assumed. In contradiction, a reinsurance treaty is
merely an agreement between two insurance companies where one agrees to cede and the
other to accept reinsurance business pursuant to provisions specified in the treaty.
Reinsurance treaties are contracts for insurance; reinsurance policies or cessions are
contracts of insurance.
8. Fieldman v. Asian Surety
- Where the reinsurance contracts in question contain provisions which clearly and expressly
recognize the continuing effectivity of policies ceded under them for reinsurance
notwithstanding the cancellation of the contracts themselves, their cancellation does not
 carry with it ipso facto the termination of all reinsurance cessions thereunder. Such cessions
continued to be in force until their respective dates of expiration.
9. Equitable Insurance v. Rural Insurance
- If in the course of the settlement of a loss, the action of the company or its agents amounts
to a refusal to pay, the company will be deemed to have waived the condition precedent
with reference to arbitration and a suit upon the policy will lie.
- The term “facultative” is used in reinsurance contracts, and it is so used in this particular
case, merely to define the right of the
- reinsurer to accept or not to accept participation in the risk insured. But once the share is
accepted, as it was in the case at bar, the obligation is absolute and the liability assumed
thereunder can be discharged by one and only way — payment of the share of the losses.
10. ADC v. WIC
- Unless there is a specific grant in, or assignment of, the reinsurance contract in favor of the
insured or a manifest intention of the contracting parties to the reinsurance contract to
grant such benefit or favor to the insured, the insured, not being privy to the reinsurance
contract, has no cause of action against the reinsurer. It is expressly provided in Sec. 91
(now Sec. 100) of the Insurance Act that “(T)he original insured has no interest in a contract
of insurance.”