Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sunlight Assurance Co. V CA

    Uploaded by

    valeryanns
    11 views1 page
    - The son of the respondents procured a life insurance policy but did not disclose that he had been hospitalized two weeks prior and diagnosed with renal failure. - When he died in a plane crash, the insurance company rejected the claim citing concealment of material facts. - The courts ruled in favor of the respondents, but the Supreme Court reversed, stating that the concealed health information was material and the contract must be rescinded per the Insurance Code. - There was concealment as the insured failed to communicate known health facts that were material to the contract as required by law, and good faith is not a defense for concealment.

    Original Description:

    Sunlight Assurance Co. v CA

    Original Title

    Sunlight Assurance Co. v CA

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    - The son of the respondents procured a life insurance policy but did not disclose that he had been hospitalized two weeks prior and diagnosed with renal failure. - When he died in a plane crash, the insurance company rejected the claim citing concealment of material facts. - The courts ruled in favor of the respondents, but the Supreme Court reversed, stating that the concealed health information was material and the contract must be rescinded per the Insurance Code. - There was concealment as the insured failed to communicate known health facts that were material to the contract as required by law, and good faith is not a defense for concealment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views1 page

    Sunlight Assurance Co. V CA

    Uploaded by

    valeryanns
    - The son of the respondents procured a life insurance policy but did not disclose that he had been hospitalized two weeks prior and diagnosed with renal failure. - When he died in a plane crash, the insurance company rejected the claim citing concealment of material facts. - The courts ruled in favor of the respondents, but the Supreme Court reversed, stating that the concealed health information was material and the contract must be rescinded per the Insurance Code. - There was concealment as the insured failed to communicate known health facts that were material to the contract as required by law, and good faith is not a defense for concealment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    105135 June 22, 1995

    Insurance case # 7

    SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, petitioner, vs. The Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses ROLANDO and BERNARDA BACANI, respondents. FACTS: Private respondents son, Robert John B. Bacani, procured a life insurance contract for himself from petitioner. The designated beneficiary was his mother, respondent Bernarda Bacani. The insured died in a plane crash. Respondent Bernarda Bacani filed a claim with petitioner, seeking the benefits of the insurance policy taken by her son. Petitioner conducted an investigation and its findings prompted it to reject the claim on the ground that the insured did not disclose material facts relevant to the issuance of the policy, such as his hospitalization two weeks prior to the application of the insurance and his diagnosis for renal failure, thus rendering the contract of insurance voidable. An action for specific performance was filed by private respondents. The RTC ruled in their favor saying that the concealment was made in good faith and under a belief that such facts need not be disclosed. The RTC also opined that the insurance was a non-health insurance. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the undisclosed facts constitute concealment and the contract of insurance should thus be rescinded. RULING: YES. There was concealment. Section 26 of The Insurance Code is explicit in requiring a party to a contract of insurance to communicate to the other, in good faith, all facts within his knowledge which are material to the contract and as to which he makes no warranty, and which the other has no means of ascertaining. Said Section provides: A neglect to communicate that which a party knows and ought to communicate, is called concealment. The terms of the contract are clear. The insured is specifically required to disclose to the insurer matters relating to his health. The undisclosed facts here are material to the approval and issuance of the insurance policy. Hence, good faith is no defense in concealment. It is but proper that the insurance contract be rescinded.

    You might also like