This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Vda. de Maglana v. Consolacion,[58] it was ruled that an insurer in an indemnity contract for third-party liability is directly liable to the injured party up to the extent specified in the agreement, but it cannot be held solidarily liable beyond that amount. According to respondent MICI, its liability as insurer of Rhoda's truck is limited. Following Vda. de Maglana, petitioners would have had the option either (1) to claim the amount awarded to them from respondent MICI, up to the extent of the insurance coverage, and the balance from Rhoda; or (2) to enforce the entire judgment against Rhoda, subject to reimbursement from respondent MICI to the extent of the insurance coverage. The Court, though, is precluded from applying its ruling in Vda. de Maglana by the difference in one vital detail between the said case and the one at bar. The insurer was able to sufficiently establish its limited liability in Vda. de Maglana, while the same cannot be said for respondent MICI herein. | |||||