Title
Country Bankers Insurance Corp. vs. Lianga Bay and Community Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 136914
Decision Date
Jan 25, 2002
Insurer denied fire claim citing NPA rebellion; court ruled insurer failed to prove exception, liable for P200K with 6% interest, deleted damages and fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136914)

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a petition for review on certiorari of a decision by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed a Regional Trial Court ruling ordering the petitioner, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, to pay a claim under a fire insurance policy. The respondent, a cooperative declared insolvent, suffered a total loss of its property due to a fire incident that occurred on July 1, 1989, during the policy's effective period.

Contractual Relationship and Fire Incident

The petitioner, a corporation engaged in the insurance business, and the respondent entered into Fire Insurance Policy No. F-1397, covering the respondent's stocks-in-trade from June 20, 1989, to June 20, 1990. When a fire destroyed the respondent's building, the cooperative filed a claim supported by several documents, including a police spot report indicating that the fire was allegedly caused by NPA rebels. The petitioner denied coverage, asserting the fire was caused by an excepted risk under the policy's terms.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court, after weighing the evidence, ruled in favor of the respondent. It evaluated the credibility and reliability of the petitioner's defenses, finding them unconvincing. The court ordered the insurer to pay the insurance claim, including interest, actual damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

Appeals and Legal Arguments

The petitioner appealed the trial court's decision, raising three key errors. These included the claim that the Court of Appeals failed to recognize evidence indicating that the fire resulted from an excepted risk, the imposition of interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint, and the awards for actual and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

Burden of Proof and Hearsay Evidence

Regarding the defense of an excepted risk, it is established that the burden of proof lies with the insurer to show that the claim falls under an exclusion in the insurance policy. The petitioner presented evidence through sworn statements and a spot report, but the Court determined these were inadmissible hearsay as the witnesses did not testify in court and were not subject to cross-examination. This lack of credible evidence weakened the petitioner's position.

Interest Rate and Damage Awards

The court held that while the insurer was liable to pay the respondent, the interest imposed by the trial court at 12% per annum was erroneous. Instead, it should b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.