This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties themselves have used. If such terms are clear and unambiguous, they must be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.[8] Accordingly, in interpreting the exclusions in an insurance contract, the terms used specifying the excluded classes therein are to be given their meaning as understood in common speech.[9] | |||||
|
2013-06-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, since the subject CBA provision is an insurance contract, the rights and obligations of the parties must be determined in accordance with the general principles of insurance law.[52] Being in the nature of a non-life insurance contract and essentially a contract of indemnity, the CBA provision obligates MMPC to indemnify the covered employees' medical expenses incurred by their dependents but only up to the extent of the expenses actually incurred.[53] This is consistent with the principle of indemnity which proscribes the insured from recovering greater than the loss.[54] Indeed, to profit from a loss will lead to unjust enrichment and therefore should not be countenanced. As aptly ruled by the CA, to grant the claims of MMPSEU will permit possible abuse by employees. | |||||