You are on page 1of 1

MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION vs.

CAPITAL INSURANCE and


SURETY CO., INC,
FACTS:
1. Misamis Lumber insured its Ford motor car for P14000 with Capital
Insurance.
a. The indemnity is limited to loss due to collisions or
overturning due to mechanical breakdown or upon wear and
tear.
b. The company may pay in cash or replace the vehicle and its
parts.
c. Misamis may authorize repair provided the estimated cost
does not exceed P150 and a detailed estimate is sent to
Capital without delay.
2. The car passed over a water hole. The housing of the car broke when
it hit the water hole. The driver did not see the water hole because the
oncoming car did not dim its lights.
3. The car was repaired (P302) and the report was sent to Capital after
such repair but Capital refused to pay.
4. LC held that Capital is liable for P302, because Capital failed to
show such is unreasonable, excessive or padded.
ISSUE: WON Capital Insurance is liable for the entire cost of repairs NO
RATIO:
1. The insurance policy clearly stipulated in paragraph 4 that if the
insured authorizes the repair the liability of the insurer, per its sub-

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

paragraph (a), is limited to P150.00. The literal meaning of this


stipulation must control, it being the actual contract, expressly and
plainly provided for in the policy.
The policy is clear and specific and leaves no room for interpretation.
The interpretation given is even unjustified because it opposes what
was specifically stipulated.
Thus, it will be observed that the policy drew out not only the limits
of the insurer's liability but also the mechanics that the insured had to
follow to be entitled to full indemnity of repairs. The option to
undertake the repairs is accorded to the insurance company per
paragraph 2.
The said company was deprived of the option because the insured
took it upon itself to have the repairs made, and only notified the
insurer when the repairs were done. As a consequence, paragraph 4,
which limits the company's liability to P150.00, applies.
The insurance contract may be "one-sided but that in itself does not
justify the abrogation of its express terms, terms which the insured
accepted or adhered to and which is the law between the contracting
parties.
Finally, to require the insurer to prove that the cost of the repairs
ordered by the insured is unreasonable, and would be contrary to
elementary justice and equity. The insurer was not given an
opportunity to inspect and assess the damage before the repairs were
made.

The appealed decision is MODIFIED. Capital Insurance shall pay P150.00


only. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees.