Scribd
Upload
195 views2 pages

Zenith Insurance Claim Dispute Ruling

- Lawrence Fernandez filed a complaint against Zenith Insurance after they refused to pay his claim for damages to his car from an accident, which amounted to P3,640. - The regional trial court and court of appeals both ruled in favor of Fernandez, awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and the full amount of the claimed damages. - The Supreme Court ruled that the award of attorney's fees was justified but that exemplary damages were not appropriate since Zenith Insurance did not act in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. They also upheld the full amount of claimed damages with no deductions by Zenith Insurance. The decision was then modified

Uploaded by

NC Bergonia
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
195 views2 pages

Zenith Insurance Claim Dispute Ruling

- Lawrence Fernandez filed a complaint against Zenith Insurance after they refused to pay his claim for damages to his car from an accident, which amounted to P3,640. - The regional trial court and court of appeals both ruled in favor of Fernandez, awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and the full amount of the claimed damages. - The Supreme Court ruled that the award of attorney's fees was justified but that exemplary damages were not appropriate since Zenith Insurance did not act in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. They also upheld the full amount of claimed damages with no deductions by Zenith Insurance. The decision was then modified

Uploaded by

NC Bergonia
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/ 2

Zenith Insurance vs CA & Fernandez (1990)

On January 25, 1983, Lawrence Fernandez insured his car for "own damage" under private
car Policy No. 50459 with petitioner Zenith Insurance. On July 6, 1983, the car figured in an
accident and suffered actual damages in the amount of P3,640.00. After allegedly being
given a run around by Zenith for two (2) months, Fernandez filed a complaint with the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu for sum of money and damages resulting from the refusal of
Zenith to pay the amount claimed.

RTC favored the respondent. CA affirmed.

Issue: Whether the award of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees are
correct?

SC:

The award of damages in case of unreasonable delay in the payment of insurance claims is
governed by the Philippine Insurance Code, which provides:

Sec. 244. In case of any litigation for the enforcement of any policy or contract
of insurance, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner or the Court, as the
case may be, to make a finding as to whether the payment of the claim of the
insured has been unreasonably denied or withheld; and in the affirmative
case, the insurance company shall be adjudged to pay damages which
shall consist of attomey's fees and other expenses incurred by the
insured person by reason of such unreasonable denial or withholding
of payment plus interest of twice the ceiling prescribed by the
Monetary Board of the amount of the claim due the insured, from the
date following the time prescribed in section two hundred forty-two or in
section two hundred forty-three, as the case may be, until the claim is fully
satisfied; Provided, That the failure to pay any such claim within the time
prescribed in said sections shall be considered prima facie evidence of
unreasonable delay in payment.

As regards the award of moral and exemplary damages, the rules under the Civil Code of the
Philippines shall govern.

"The purpose of moral damages is essentially indemnity or reparation, not punishment or


correction. Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the
expense of a defendant, they are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means,
diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone
by reason of the defendant's culpable action."

On the other hand, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or
correction for the public good. It is not awarded as the insurance company had not acted in
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.

The amount of P5,000.00 awarded as attomey's fees is justified under the circumstances of
this case considering that there were other petitions filed and defended by private
respondent in connection with this case.
As regards the actual damages incurred by private respondent, appellate court correctly
ruled that the deductions of P250.00 and P274.00 as deductible franchise and 20%
depreciation on parts, respectively claimed by petitioners as agreed upon in the contract,
had no basis. No mentioned deductible franchise in the policy. Decision Modified.

You might also like