Taurus Taxi Co., Inc. c. Capital Insurance & Surety CO.

~~ Alfredo Monje, was employed as taxi dri er !y t"e Taurus Taxi Co., Inc.. T"e taxi "e was dri in# collided wit" a Transport Taxica! resultin# in "is deat".. At t"e time of t"e accident, t"ere was su!sistin# and in force Commercial $e"icle Compre"ensi e %olicy &o. '(', )*) issued !y CA%ITA+ I&S,-A&C. & S,-.T/ CO-%. to "erein Taurus Taxi Co., Inc. T"e amount for w"ic" eac" passen#er, includin# t"e dri er, is insured is %0,(((.((.1. T"e policy was issued to Taurus Taxi Co., Inc.. After w"ic" Taurus made representations 2for t"e payment of t"e insurance !enefit correspondin# to "er and "er c"ildren since it was issued in its name, !enefit correspondin# to "er and "er c"ildren, !ut despite demands, Capital Insurance company refused and still refuses to pay t"em. Capital Insurance & Surety Co. Inc. alle#ed 2t"at in iew of t"e fact t"at t"e deceased Alfredo Monje was entitled to indemnity under anot"er insurance policy issued !y .d. A.3eller Co., +td., t"e "eirs of t"e said deceased are not entitled to indemnity under t"e insurance policy issued !y it for t"e reason t"at t"e latter policy contains a stipulation t"at2 t"e company will indemnify any aut"ori4ed dri er pro ided t"at suc" aut"ori4ed dri er is not entitled to indemnity under any ot"er policy. ISS,.5 6"et"er t"e "eirs of A+7-.8O MO&9. !e entitled to t"e proceeds of t"e insurance policy issued !y Capital Insurance Company e en if t"ere is an existin# indemnity contract wit" anot"er insurance company at t"e time of "is deat". :eld5 T"e Supreme Court allowed reco ery in t"is case, notwit"standin# t"e a!o e stipulation in t"e issued policy, on t"e #round t"at w"at was paid to t"e deceased dri er;s "eirs under t"e 6or<men;s Compensation +aw was not =indemnity> !ut =compensation.> =Since,> said t"e :i#" Court, =w"at is pro"i!ited ? t"e insurance policy in @uestion is t"at any aut"ori4ed dri er of plaintiff Taurus Taxi Co., Inc. s"ould not !e entitled to any indemnity under any ot"er policy, it would appear indisputa!le t"at t"e o!li#ation of defendant?appellant under t"e policy "ad not in any wise !een extin#uis"ed.> In ot"er words, t"e Supreme Court, in order to allow reco ery, in t"is case, "eld t"at =compensation> under t"e M). C. +. is not =indemnity.> Instead of ma<in# a fine distinction !etween =compensation> and =indemnity> A iewed from a !road an#le, compensation #i en under t"e 6or<men;s Compensation +aw for deat" or injury suffered w"ile arisin# out of and in t"e course of employment is, in a sense, indemnity to t"e employee or "is "eirs,B t"e Supreme Court, per"aps, could "a e mars"alled its judicial statesmans"ip !y "oldin# t"at suc" a stipulation practically amounts to depri in# t"e employee of reco ery under t"e 6or<men;s Compensation +aw and s"ould !e declared oid as a#ainst pu!lic policy. %u!lic policy demands t"at reco ery under t"e 6or<? men;s Compensation +aw or under any law #rantin# !enefits s"ould not !e limited or annulled !y pri ate a#reement, as suc" laws are intended to ser e t"e ends of social justice. :ence, any stipulation w"ic" depri es a person of !enefits #ranted !y t"e law s"ould !e "eld null and oid as a#ainst pu!lic policy. T"e Supreme Court did not say t"is, !ut it could "a e said so, in decidin# t"e case at !ar, wit"out t"e need of compellin# t"e Car to !elie e t"at compensation under t"e 6or<men;s Compensation +aw w"ic", in t"e case at !ar was secured !y a policy of insurance Aissued !y .d. A. 3eller Co. +td., an insurerB is not =indemnity> under any ot"er policy.