Scribd
Upload
202 views1 page

Coquia Vs Fieldmen Insurance Co

The Manila Yellow Taxicab Company insured their taxis through a policy with Fieldmen's Insurance Company from December 1961 to December 1962. In December 1961, one of Manila Yellow's taxis, driven by Carlito Coquia, was in an accident where Carlito died. Manila Yellow and Carlito's parents filed a complaint against Fieldmen's to collect the proceeds of the policy. The court found that as the policy was meant to protect third parties like passengers or the public, Carlito's heirs had a direct cause of action against Fieldmen's to collect, even though they were not a direct party to the insurance contract. Thus, the court ordered Fieldmen's to pay Manila Yellow and Carlito's heirs P4

Uploaded by

Charmae Casil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
202 views1 page

Coquia Vs Fieldmen Insurance Co

The Manila Yellow Taxicab Company insured their taxis through a policy with Fieldmen's Insurance Company from December 1961 to December 1962. In December 1961, one of Manila Yellow's taxis, driven by Carlito Coquia, was in an accident where Carlito died. Manila Yellow and Carlito's parents filed a complaint against Fieldmen's to collect the proceeds of the policy. The court found that as the policy was meant to protect third parties like passengers or the public, Carlito's heirs had a direct cause of action against Fieldmen's to collect, even though they were not a direct party to the insurance contract. Thus, the court ordered Fieldmen's to pay Manila Yellow and Carlito's heirs P4

Uploaded by

Charmae Casil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Coquia vs Fieldmen Insurance Co.

Facts: On December 1, 1961, Fieldmen’s Insurance Company, Inc (Company) issued, in favor of the
Manila Yellow Taxicab Co, Inc (Insured) a common carrier accident insurance policy, covering the period
from December 1961 to December 1962. While the policy was in force, a taxicab of the Insured, driven
by Carlito Coquia, met an accident at Mangaldan, Pangasinan, in consequence of which Carllito died. The
insured filed for a claim of P5,000 to which the Company replied with an offer to pay P2,000 by way of
compromise. The Insured rejected the same and made a counter-offer of P4,000, but the Company did
not accept it. On September 18, 1962, the Insured and Carlito’s parents filed a complaint against the
Company to collect the proceeds of the policy. In its answer, the Company admitted the existence
thereof, but pleaded lack of cause of action on the part of the plaintiffs. The trial court ordered the
Company to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P4,000 and the costs. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether o not the plaintiffs have a contractual relation with the Company

Held: Yes. Pour autrui is where the enforcement of a contract 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. Pursuant to the policy’s stipulations, the Company "will
indemnify any authorized Driver who is driving the Motor Vehicle" of the Insured and, in the event of
death of said driver, the Company shall, likewise, "indemnify his personal representatives." In fact the
Company "may, at its option, make indemnity payable directly to the claimants . . . or heirs of
claimants .. it being the true intention of this Policy to protect . . . the liabilities of the Insured towards
the passengers of the Motor Vehicle and the Public" — in other words, third parties.

Thus, 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, 3 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.

You might also like