Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 185964 2014-06-16	ASIAN TERMINALS v. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION REYES, J.
In Home Insurance Corporation v. CA,[45] the Court also held that the insurance contract was necessary to prove that it covered the hauling portion of the shipment and was not limited to the transport of the cargo while at sea. The shipment in that case passed through six stages with different parties involved in each stage until it reached the consignee. The insurance contract, which was not presented in evidence, was necessary to determine the scope of the insurer's liability, if any, since no evidence was adduced indicating at what stage in the handling process the damage to the cargo was sustained.[46]
	GR No. 161539 2008-06-27	INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES v. FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Brokerage Corp.,[18] the Court stated that the presentation of the marine insurance policy was necessary, as the issues raised therein arose from the very existence of an insurance contract between Malayan Insurance and its consignee, ABB Koppel, even prior to the loss of the shipment. In Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc.,[19] the Court ruled that the insurance contract must be presented in evidence in order to determine the extent of the coverage. This was also the ruling of the Court in Home Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals.[20]