Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    5.) Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Jamila & Company

    Uploaded by

    Jarvin David Resus
    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid a claim to its insured, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, after Firestone's properties were allegedly stolen by employees in connivance with security guards contracted by Jamila & Company. Fireman's Fund then sought to collect the amount from Jamila using its right of subrogation. Jamila argued consent was needed, which was not given. However, the court ruled consent is not required as payment by the insurer equitably assigns the insured's rights and remedies to recover losses. Subrogation does not depend on privity of contract but accrues upon payment to promote justice by compelling ultimate payment from those responsible.

    Copyright:

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

    5.) Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Jamila & Company

    Uploaded by

    Jarvin David Resus
    79 views1 page
    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid a claim to its insured, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, after Firestone's properties were allegedly stolen by employees in connivance with security guards contracted by Jamila & Company. Fireman's Fund then sought to collect the amount from Jamila using its right of subrogation. Jamila argued consent was needed, which was not given. However, the court ruled consent is not required as payment by the insurer equitably assigns the insured's rights and remedies to recover losses. Subrogation does not depend on privity of contract but accrues upon payment to promote justice by compelling ultimate payment from those responsible.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid a claim to its insured, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, after Firestone's properties were allegedly stolen by employees in connivance with security guards contracted by Jamila & Company. Fireman's Fund then sought to collect the amount from Jamila using its right of subrogation. Jamila argued consent was needed, which was not given. However, the court ruled consent is not required as payment by the insurer equitably assigns the insured's rights and remedies to recover losses. Subrogation does not depend on privity of contract but accrues upon payment to promote justice by compelling ultimate payment from those responsible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views1 page

    5.) Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Jamila & Company

    Uploaded by

    Jarvin David Resus
    Fireman's Fund Insurance Company paid a claim to its insured, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, after Firestone's properties were allegedly stolen by employees in connivance with security guards contracted by Jamila & Company. Fireman's Fund then sought to collect the amount from Jamila using its right of subrogation. Jamila argued consent was needed, which was not given. However, the court ruled consent is not required as payment by the insurer equitably assigns the insured's rights and remedies to recover losses. Subrogation does not depend on privity of contract but accrues upon payment to promote justice by compelling ultimate payment from those responsible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Jamila & Company, Inc., G.R.

    No. L-27427, 07 April 1976


    FACTS: Jamila & Company, Inc. (Jamila) contracted with Firestone Tire &
    Rubber Company of the Philippines (Firestone) to supply the latter with security
    guards. It also assumed responsibility for the acts of its guards. The properties of
    Firestone were insured with Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s
    Fund). Later on, Firestone’s properties were allegedly stolen by its employees who
    connived with Jamila’s guards. Fireman’s Fund paid Firestone the amount of the
    loss. Claiming right of subrogation, Fireman’s Fund sought to collect from Jamila
    but to no avail, prompting Fireman’s Fund to file a collection suit against Jamila,
    which moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Fireman’s Fund had no cause
    of action, because it failed to allege that Jamila consented to the subrogation.
    ISSUE: Whether Jamila’s consent is necessary for Fireman’s Fund to avail of the
    right of subrogation.
    RULING: No. When the insurance company pays for the loss, such payment
    operates as an equitable assignment to the insurer of the property and all remedies
    which the insured may have for the recovery thereof. That right is not dependent
    upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract, or upon written assignment
    of claim, and payment to the insured makes the insurer an assignee in equity.
    KEY CONCEPTS:
    The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity
    of contract. It accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the
    insurance claim. The doctrine of subrogation has its roots in equity. It is designed
    to promote and to accomplish justice; and is the mode that equity adopts to compel
    the ultimate payment of a debt by one who, in justice, equity, and good conscience,
    ought to pay.

    You might also like