Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Coquia V Fieldmen's PDF

    Uploaded by

    ASGarcia24
    103 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case, Coquia v. Fieldmenʼs Insurance, regarding whether the parents of a deceased taxicab driver had the right to collect on an insurance policy after he died in an accident. The court held that while generally only parties to a contract can bring an action, an exception is contracts pour autrui, where a contract contains provisions for the benefit of a third party. In this case, the insurance policy was determined to be a contract pour autrui since it provided payment to heirs of a deceased driver and the driver paid 50% of the premiums. Therefore, the parents of the deceased driver had a direct cause of action against the insurance company to collect the policy benefits

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Coquia v Fieldmen's.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case, Coquia v. Fieldmenʼs Insurance, regarding whether the parents of a deceased taxicab driver had the right to collect on an insurance policy after he died in an accident. The court held that while generally only parties to a contract can bring an action, an exception is contracts pour autrui, where a contract contains provisions for the benefit of a third party. In this case, the insurance policy was determined to be a contract pour autrui since it provided payment to heirs of a deceased driver and the driver paid 50% of the premiums. Therefore, the parents of the deceased driver had a direct cause of action against the insurance company to collect the policy benefits

    Copyright:

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

    Coquia V Fieldmen's PDF

    Uploaded by

    ASGarcia24
    This document summarizes a court case, Coquia v. Fieldmenʼs Insurance, regarding whether the parents of a deceased taxicab driver had the right to collect on an insurance policy after he died in an accident. The court held that while generally only parties to a contract can bring an action, an exception is contracts pour autrui, where a contract contains provisions for the benefit of a third party. In this case, the insurance policy was determined to be a contract pour autrui since it provided payment to heirs of a deceased driver and the driver paid 50% of the premiums. Therefore, the parents of the deceased driver had a direct cause of action against the insurance company to collect the policy benefits

    Copyright:

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

    Coquia v.

    Fieldmenʼs Insurance 26
    SCRA 172
    Law on Insurance

    26 SCRA 172

    Facts:

    > On Dec. 1, 1961, Fieldmenʼs Insurance co. Issued in favor of the Manila
    Yellow Taxicab a common carrier insurance policy with a stipulation that the
    company shall indemnify the insured of the sums which the latter wmy be
    held liable for with respect to “death or bodily injury to any faire-paying
    passenger including the driver and conductor”.

    > The policy also stated that in “the event of the death of the driver, the
    Company shall indemnify his personal representatives and at the Companyʼs
    option may make indemnity payable directly to the claimants or heirs of the
    claimants.”

    > During the policyʼs lifetime, a taxicab of the insured driven by Coquia met
    an accident and Coquia died.

    > When the company refused to pay the only heirs of Coquia, his parents,
    they institued this complaint. The company contends that plaintiffs have no
    cause of action since the Coquias have no contractual relationship with the
    company.

    Issue:

    Whether or not plaintiffs have the right to collect on the policy.

    Held:
    YES.

    Athough, in general, only parties to a contract may bring an action based


    thereon, this rule is subject to exceptions, one of which is found in the
    second paragraph of Article 1311 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
    reading: "If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third
    person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his
    acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or
    interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have
    clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person." This is but
    the restatement of a well-known principle concerning contracts pour autrui,
    the enforcement of which may be demanded by a third party for whose
    benefit it was made, although not a party to the contract, before the
    stipulation in his favor has been revoked by the contracting parties

    In the case at bar, the policy under consideration is typical of contracts pour
    autrui this character being made more manifest by the fact that the
    deceased driver paid fifty percent (50%) of the corresponding premiums,
    which were deducted from his weekly commissions. Under these conditions,
    it is clear that the Coquias — who, admittedly, are the sole heirs of the
    deceased — have a direct cause of action against the Company, and, since
    they could have maintained this action by themselves, without the
    assistance of the insured it goes without saying that they could and did
    properly join the latter in filing the complaint herein.

    Prev
    Next

    You might also like