Ty v. First National Surety & Assurance Co. Inc G.R. No.

L 161138 April 29, 1961 FACTS: Diosdado Ty was employed as operator mechanic foreman in the Broadway Cotton Factory He insured himself in 18 local insurance companies which issued to him personal accident policies His beneficiary was his employer Broadway Cotton Factory, which paid the insurance premiums A fire broke out which totally destroyed the Factory Plaintiff was injured on the left hand by a heavy object He underwent medical treatment Physical injuries have caused temporary total disability of plaintiffs left hand Plaintiff Ty filed notice of accident and notice of claim to recover indemnity under their insurance policy: o Partial Disability Loss of: Either hand xxx The loss of a hand shall mean the loss by amputation through the bones of the wrist Defendants rejected plaintiffs claim Contention of defendant: o There being no severance of amputation of the left hand, the disability suffered by him was not covered by his policy Contention of plaintiff: o In order that he may recover on the insurance policies for the loss of his left hand, it is not necessary that there should

be an amputation thereof, but that it is sufficient if the injuries prevent him from performing his work or labor necessary in the pursuance of his occupation or business Total disability means common prudence requires him to desist from transacting his business or renders him incapable of working

ISSUE: Whether or not Plaintiff Ty may recover on the insurance policies issued to him for the loss of his left hand HELD: No We cannot go beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all of which define partial disability as loss of either hand by amputation There was no such amputation in the case at bar Note that the disability of plaintiffs hand was merely temporary The insurance policy is the law between the parties The terms of the policies are clear, express and specific that only amputation of the left hand should be considered as a loss thereof An interpretation that would include temporary disability not covered by the policy would be unwarranted