Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gulf Resorts Inc. v. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    18 views2 pages
    Gulf Resorts Inc. was insured by American Home Assurance Company for damage from earthquakes. In 1990, an earthquake damaged Gulf Resort's properties including two swimming pools. American Home denied the claim, arguing coverage was only for the pools. Gulf Resorts sued, arguing the policy provided full earthquake coverage. The courts ruled in favor of Gulf Resorts, finding all parts of an insurance policy must be interpreted together, and no limitations were included in the earthquake coverage rider. As Gulf Resorts paid a premium for full earthquake coverage, they could claim losses to all insured properties, not just the pools.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    #5 Gulf Resorts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gulf Resorts Inc. was insured by American Home Assurance Company for damage from earthquakes. In 1990, an earthquake damaged Gulf Resort's properties including two swimming pools. American Home denied the claim, arguing coverage was only for the pools. Gulf Resorts sued, arguing the policy provided full earthquake coverage. The courts ruled in favor of Gulf Resorts, finding all parts of an insurance policy must be interpreted together, and no limitations were included in the earthquake coverage rider. As Gulf Resorts paid a premium for full earthquake coverage, they could claim losses to all insured properties, not just the pools.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    18 views2 pages

    Gulf Resorts Inc. v. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    Gulf Resorts Inc. was insured by American Home Assurance Company for damage from earthquakes. In 1990, an earthquake damaged Gulf Resort's properties including two swimming pools. American Home denied the claim, arguing coverage was only for the pools. Gulf Resorts sued, arguing the policy provided full earthquake coverage. The courts ruled in favor of Gulf Resorts, finding all parts of an insurance policy must be interpreted together, and no limitations were included in the earthquake coverage rider. As Gulf Resorts paid a premium for full earthquake coverage, they could claim losses to all insured properties, not just the pools.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Gulf Resorts Inc. v.

    Philippine Charter
    Insurance Corp. (2005)
    G.R. No. 156167 May 16, 2005
    Lessons Applicable: Stipulations Cannot Be Segregated (Insurance)

    FACTS:

     Gulf Resorts, Inc at Agoo, La Union was insured with American Home
    Assurance Company which includes loss or damage to shock to any of
    the property insured by this Policy occasioned by or through or in
    consequence of earthquake
     July 16, 1990: an earthquake struck Central Luzon and Northern Luzon
    so the properties and 2 swimming pools in its Agoo Playa Resort were
    damaged
     August 23, 1990: Gulf's claim was denied on the ground that its
    insurance policy only afforded earthquake shock coverage to the two
    swimming pools of the resort
    o Petitioner contends that pursuant to this rider, no qualifications
    were placed on the scope of the earthquake shock
    coverage. Thus, the policy extended earthquake shock coverage
    to all of the insured properties.
     RTC: Favored American Home - endorsement rider means that only
    the two swimming pools were insured against earthquake shock
     CA: affirmed RTC

    ISSUE: W/N Gulf can claim for its properties aside from the 2 swimming
    pools

    HELD: YES. Affirmed.

     It is basic that all the provisions of the insurance policy should be


    examined and interpreted in consonance with each other.
    o All its parts are reflective of the true intent of the parties.

    Insurance Code
    Section 2(1)
    contract of insurance as an agreement whereby one undertakes for a consideration to
    indemnify another against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent
    event

     An insurance premium is the consideration paid an insurer for


    undertaking to indemnify the insured against a specified peril.
    o In the subject policy, no premium payments were made with
    regard to earthquake shock coverage, except on the two
    swimming pools.

    You might also like