1. The petitioner owned a home insured by the respondent insurance company. The insurance policy required payment of a renewal premium by January 4, 1966, but the premium was not paid.
2. In January 1966, a fire ravaged the petitioner's home. The petitioner filed a claim, but the respondent denied coverage as the renewal premium had not been paid.
3. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that timely payment of premiums is essential for a valid insurance policy based on the Insurance Act and the policy terms. As the premium was not paid by the due date, the respondent was not obligated to provide coverage for the fire.
1. The petitioner owned a home insured by the respondent insurance company. The insurance policy required payment of a renewal premium by January 4, 1966, but the premium was not paid.
2. In January 1966, a fire ravaged the petitioner's home. The petitioner filed a claim, but the respondent denied coverage as the renewal premium had not been paid.
3. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that timely payment of premiums is essential for a valid insurance policy based on the Insurance Act and the policy terms. As the premium was not paid by the due date, the respondent was not obligated to provide coverage for the fire.
1. The petitioner owned a home insured by the respondent insurance company. The insurance policy required payment of a renewal premium by January 4, 1966, but the premium was not paid.
2. In January 1966, a fire ravaged the petitioner's home. The petitioner filed a claim, but the respondent denied coverage as the renewal premium had not been paid.
3. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that timely payment of premiums is essential for a valid insurance policy based on the Insurance Act and the policy terms. As the premium was not paid by the due date, the respondent was not obligated to provide coverage for the fire.
G.R. No. L-28501, September 30, 1982 Topic: Premium Ponente: Abad Santos, J. Author:Jimi Arranchado Link: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/sep1982/gr_l_28501_1982.html FACTS: 1. The petitioner, the insured, was the owner of a residential house inTondo, Manila, which had been insured with the Capital insurance since 1961under Fire Policy No. 24204. 2. On November 27, 1965, the COMPANY sent to the petitioner Renewal Certificate No. 47302 to cover the period December 5, 1965 to December 5, 1966. The respondent also requested payment of the corresponding premium in the amount of P38.10. 3. Anticipating that the premium could not be paid on time, the petitioner, thru his wife, promised to pay it on January 4, 1966. The respondent accepted the promise but the premium was not paid on January 4, 1966. 4. When the petitioners house was ravaged with fire, the petitioners wife presented a claim for indemnity to the respondent. She was told that no indemnity was due because the premium on the policy was not paid. 5. Nonetheless the respondent tendered a check forP300.00 as financial aid which was received by the petiotioners daughter. The respondent reiterated that the check was given "not as an obligation, but as a concession" because the renewal premium had not been paid. The petitioner cashed the check but then sued the respondent on the policy. 6. CFI: Capital Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. was ordered to pay Pedro Arce the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to claim from their policy despite non-payment of their premium. HELD:
No.
RATIO:
1. It is obvious from both the Insurance Act, as amended, and the stipulation of the parties that time is of the essence in respect of the payment of the insurance premium so that if it is not paid the contract does not take effect unless there is still another stipulation to the contrary. In the instant case, the petitioner was given a grace period to pay the premium but the period having expired with no payment made; he cannot insist that the respondent is nonetheless obligated to him. 2. Moreover, the parties in this case had stipulated:
[T]his insurance will be deemed valid and binding upon the respondent (Capital Assurance) only when the premium and documentary stamps therefor have actually been paid in full and duly acknowledged in an official receipt signed by an authorized official/representative of the respondent (Capital Assurance). DOCTRINE
An insurer is entitled to payment of premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the perils insured against, unless there is clear agreement to grant credit extension for the premium due. No policy issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid.