Johanna S.

Adremesin JD 3 Insurance Law Assignment: Legal Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

I dissent with the decision of the court. The petition shouldn’t have been dismissed and must be
given due course. Under the law, an insurance contract must possess all the essential elements
of a contract to be valid and binding between the contracting parties. In the case at bar, the
element of meeting of the minds is lacking. Evaristo Feliciano, the insured, subscribed to a false
statement stating that, he was and had been in good health when the policy was delivered and
accepted by him. Hence, the contract is void ab initio, there being no contract at all because one
essential element is not present. Another point why I dissent with the decision of the court is that
the contract between the parties was executed in bad faith. It is known to us that the contract of
insurance is an Uberrimae Fides contract. It means that the contract of insurance is one of
perfect good faith. It should be executed in good faith not only on the part of the insured but it
should be exercised by both of the parties. The agent, who is the representative of the
company, the medical examiner, and the insured acted in bad faith. With the given set of facts
of the case, it can be implied there that the parties involved were in bad faith upon the execution
of the insurance contract. When Evaristo Feliciano was made to sign his application for
insurance, it was already known to the agent and the medical examiner that the former was
already experiencing symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis and was in a condition where the
chances of surviving is very little, yet the two still made it appear that the insured was a fit
subject for insurance. When he signed the application he was already having difficulty in
breathing and suffering high fever. Also, when he signed his application for insurance, there is
no way that he was not able to read the statement that he is a proper subject for life insurance
and currently in good health. If it is true that the insured acted in good faith, he shouldn’t have
signed the application for his insurance knowing his current state. I am not pleased with regard
to the fact that Evaristo Feliciano is an illiterate or does not understand the English language.
He should have made his agent or his relatives, who were present at the time he signed it, read
it to him in order for him to understand it before he accepted it and paid the premiums after. He
should have realized or it should have come into his concern that the statements or the answers
to the questions filled up by the agent differs from what he had made, that he has been sick and
coughing for days already and had been to Santol Sanatorium for a couple of times for X-ray
examination, where it resulted to an unfavorable outcome. Going through the facts and
circumstances of this case, I come to conclude that, Evaristo Feliciano is jointly responsible with
the agent and the medical examiner of the petitioner and as a result, should bear the loss. For
these reasons, it could be argued that the petition filed by the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.
against Serafin Feliciano, et. al. shouldn’t have been dismissed.