Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 168402 2008-08-06	ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA REYES, R.T., J.
Upon payment to the consignee of indemnity for damage to the insured goods, ICNA's entitlement to subrogation equipped it with a cause of action against petitioner in case of a contractual breach or negligence.[30] This right of subrogation, however, has its limitations. First, both the insurer and the consignee are bound by the contractual stipulations under the bill of lading.[31] Second, the insurer can be subrogated only to the rights as the insured may have against the wrongdoer. If by its own acts after receiving payment from the insurer, the insured releases the wrongdoer who caused the loss from liability, the insurer loses its claim against the latter.[32]
	GR NO. 125283 2006-02-10	PAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SALES CO. v. CA TINGA, J.
Pan Pacific disputes the common conclusion reached by the courts below that the presumption of regularity of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Marital Consent, which in its estimation are both public documents, has been rebutted by Capistrano's countervailing evidence. The correctness of the conclusions on the alleged spuriousness of the documents in question drawn by the courts below from the facts on record is before this Court. The issue is a question of law cognizable by the Court.[32]
	GR NO. 136888 2005-06-29	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CHEMOIL LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The filing of a claim with the carrier within the time limitation therefore actually constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of, or damage to, the goods. The shipper or consignee must allege and prove the fulfillment of the condition. If it fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier can accrue in favor of the former. The aforementioned requirement is a reasonable condition precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of action.[31]