Insurance Online Quiz Week 5

Instruction: Write your answers on the following problems and submit your yellow papers
on the next meeting.

1—Plaintiff (MOR-BOR) filed a complaint praying that defendant (ME-TOR) be ordered to credit
to the plaintiff with the necessary amount from the sum received by the defendant from the
Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. and to apply the same to the payment of plaintiff's
obligation thus considering it as fully paid. Decide.

2—Upon hearing the evidence the trial judge came to the conclusion that Harding had no right
of action whatever against the companies and absolved them from liability without special
finding as to costs. Was the judge correct?

3—Explain the situation where separate insurances covering different insurable interests may
be obtained by the mortgagor and the mortgagee as to a mortgaged property.

4—Explain the concept of insurable interest.

5—What is the law regarding revocability of designation of the beneficiary under the insurance
code?

6—It is the contention of appellants that the lower court erred in not holding that the
designated beneficiaries in the life insurance of the late Jose Consuegra are also the exclusive
beneficiaries in the retirement insurance of said deceased. To whom should this retirement
insurance benefits of Jose Consuegra be paid, because he did not, or failed to, designate the
beneficiary of his retirement insurance?

7—(A)re the members of the legitimate family entitled to the proceeds of the insurance which
named the concubine and/or her children?

8—Who are the persons prohibited by law to be named beneficiary and disqualified from
receiving the benefits in an insurance policy?

9—Carponia T. Ebrado filed with the insurer a claim for the proceeds of the Policy as the
designated beneficiary therein, although she admits that she and the insured Buenaventura C.
Ebrado were merely living as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Will the claim
prosper?

10   PHILAMLIFE contends that the loan application and the surrender of the policy
involved acts of disposition and alienation of the property rights of the minor, said acts are not
within the power of administrator granted under Art. 320 in relation to art. 326 CC, hence court
authority is required. Rule on the contention.