Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Philamcare Health Systems, Inc. V. Ca, Trinos (2002) : Action On The Contract. in This Case, No Rescission Was Made

    Uploaded by

    Errica Marie De Guzman
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Philamcare Health Systems could not rescind Ernani Trinos' health insurance policy due to concealment. 2) For an insurance policy to be rescinded due to concealment, the insurer has the burden to prove the insured had fraudulent intent. Philamcare did not prove Ernani had fraudulent intent. 3) Additionally, the right to rescind a policy due to concealment must be exercised before a claim is filed. Philamcare did not attempt to rescind the policy before Ernani's wife filed claims. 4) The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Ernani's wife, requiring Philamcare to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philamcare Health Systems, Inc. V. Ca, Trinos (2002) : Action On The Contract. in This Case, No Rescission Was Made

    Uploaded by

    Errica Marie De Guzman
    28 views2 pages
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Philamcare Health Systems could not rescind Ernani Trinos' health insurance policy due to concealment. 2) For an insurance policy to be rescinded due to concealment, the insurer has the burden to prove the insured had fraudulent intent. Philamcare did not prove Ernani had fraudulent intent. 3) Additionally, the right to rescind a policy due to concealment must be exercised before a claim is filed. Philamcare did not attempt to rescind the policy before Ernani's wife filed claims. 4) The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Ernani's wife, requiring Philamcare to

    Original Description:

    Philam v CA

    Original Title

    COM_Philam v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Philamcare Health Systems could not rescind Ernani Trinos' health insurance policy due to concealment. 2) For an insurance policy to be rescinded due to concealment, the insurer has the burden to prove the insured had fraudulent intent. Philamcare did not prove Ernani had fraudulent intent. 3) Additionally, the right to rescind a policy due to concealment must be exercised before a claim is filed. Philamcare did not attempt to rescind the policy before Ernani's wife filed claims. 4) The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Ernani's wife, requiring Philamcare to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views2 pages

    Philamcare Health Systems, Inc. V. Ca, Trinos (2002) : Action On The Contract. in This Case, No Rescission Was Made

    Uploaded by

    Errica Marie De Guzman
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Philamcare Health Systems could not rescind Ernani Trinos' health insurance policy due to concealment. 2) For an insurance policy to be rescinded due to concealment, the insurer has the burden to prove the insured had fraudulent intent. Philamcare did not prove Ernani had fraudulent intent. 3) Additionally, the right to rescind a policy due to concealment must be exercised before a claim is filed. Philamcare did not attempt to rescind the policy before Ernani's wife filed claims. 4) The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Ernani's wife, requiring Philamcare to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PHILAMCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. v.

    CA, TRINOS (2002)


    Ynares-Santiago, J
    Re: Insurance; concealment

    DOCTRINE:
    The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to warrant rescission of the
    insurance contract. Concealment as a defense for the health care provider or insurer to avoid
    liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and
    convincing evidence rests upon the provider or insurer.

    The right to rescind should be exercised previous to the commencement of an action on the
    contract. In this case, no rescission was made.

    FACTS:
    Ernani Trinos applied for a health care coverage with Philamcare. In the standard application
    form, he answered no when asked whether he or his family have ever consulted or been treater
    for high blood pressure, heart trouble, diabetes, cancer, liver disease, asthma or peptic ulcer.
    During the period of the coverage, Ernani suffered a heart attack and eventually died.

    While Ernani was in the hospital and after his death, the respondent, deceaseds wife, asked the
    insurance company to reimburse the expenses she incurred on the hospitalization of Ernani.
    Petitioner insurance company denied her claim because there was concealment regarding
    Ernanis medical history.

    Trial Court: ruled in favor of the wife of the deceased.
    CA: affirmed trial courts decision

    ISSUE:
    Whether the policy was rescinded because of concealment.

    HELD:
    No, The right to rescind should be exercised previous to the commencement of an
    action on the contract. In this case, no rescission was made.

    The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to warrant
    rescission of the insurance contract. Concealment as a defense for the health care
    provider or insurer to avoid liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to
    establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing evidence rests upon the
    provider or insurer. In any case, with or without the authority to investigate, petitioner is
    liable for claims made under the contract. Having assumed a responsibility under the agreement,
    petitioner is bound to answer the same to the extent agreed upon. In the end, the liability of the
    health care provider attaches once the member is hospitalized for the disease or injury covered by
    the agreement or whenever he avails of the covered benefits which he has prepaid.

    Under Section 27 of the Insurance Code, a concealment entitles the injured party to rescind a
    contract of insurance. The right to rescind should be exercised previous to the
    commencement of an action on the contract. In this case, no rescission was made.

    Besides, the cancellation of health care agreements as in insurance policies require the
    concurrence of the following conditions:
    1. Prior notice of cancellation to insured;
    2. Notice must be based on the occurrence after effective date of the policy of one or more
    of the grounds mentioned;
    3. Must be in writing, mailed or delivered to the insured at the address shown in the
    policy;
    4. Must state the grounds relied upon provided in Section 64 of the Insurance Code and
    upon request of insured, to furnish facts on which cancellation is based.
    None of the above pre-conditions was fulfilled in this case. When the terms of
    insurance contract contain limitations on liability, courts should construe them in such a way as
    to preclude the insurer from non-compliance with his obligation. Being a contract of adhesion,
    the terms of an insurance contract are to be construed strictly against the party which prepared
    the contract the insurer.

    You might also like