5. GULF RESORTS INC vs PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION (2005) FACTS ACTS:: Gulf Gulf Resorts esorts,, Inc at Agoo Agoo,, La Union Union was was insur insured ed with with Ameri American can Home Home Ass Assura urance nce Compa Company ny which which includes loss or damage to shock to any of the property insured by this olicy occasioned by or through or in conse!uence of earth!uake "uly #$, #%%&' #%%&' an earth!uake earth!uake struck Central Central Lu(on Lu(on and )orthern )orthern Lu(on Lu(on so the propertie properties s and * swimming pools pools in its Agoo laya Resort were damaged August *+, #%%&' Gulfs claim was denied on the ground that its insurance policy only a-orded earth!uake shock co.erage to the two swimming pools of the resort Petitioner insists t!t te "!rties !ve inten#e# to e$ten# te %over!&e tro'& te attachment of the phrase /S'e%t /S'e%t to: Oter Ins'r!n%e C*!'se+ T,"oon En#orse-ent+ E!rt'!/e So%/ En#orse-ent+ E$ten#e# Cover!&e En#orse-ent+ FEA !rr!nt, 1 Ann'!* P!,-ent A&ree-ent on Lon& Ter- Po*i%ies to the insurance policy0 ISSUE: 1hether or not the insurance policy earth!uake shock co.erage e2tends to other property aside from the two swimming pools0 HEL3: NO. etitioner etitioner cannot focus on the earth!uake earth!uake shock endorsement to the e2clusion e2clusion of the other pro.isions0 All the pro.isions and riders, taken and interpreted together, indubitably show the intention of the parties to e2tend earth!uake shock co.erage to the two swimming pools only0 A careful e2amination e2amination of the premium recapitulation recapitulation will show that it is the clear intent of the parties to e2tend earth!uake shock co.erage only to the two swimming pools0 "re-i'- "!,-ents "!,-ents 4ere -!#e 4it re&!r# to e!rt'!/ e!rt'!/e e so%/ %over!&e+ %over!&e+ In the sub3ect sub3ect policy, policy, no "re-i'e$%e"t on te t4o s4i--in& "oo*s0 "oo*s 0 4here is no mention of any premium payable for the other resort properties with regard to earth!uake shock0 4his is consistent with the history of petitioner5s pre.ious insurance policies from AHAC6AIU0 In sum, sum, tere is no !-i&'it, in te ter-s o te %ontr!%t !n# its ri#ers 0 etitioner cannot rely on the general rule that insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion which should be liberally construed in fa.or of the insured and strictly against the insurer company which usually prepares it0 A contract of adhesion is 222 e %!nnot %!nnot !""*, te &ener!* r'*e on %ontr!%ts %ontr!%ts o !#esion to te %!se !t !r0 !r0 etitioner cannot claim it did not know the pro.isions of the policy0 7rom the inception of the policy, petitioner had re!uired the respondent to copy verbatim the pro.isions and terms of its latest insurance policy from AHAC6AIU0 3OCTRINE: It is basic that all the pro.isions of the insurance policy should be e2amined and interpreted in consonance with each other0 All its parts are re8ecti.e of the true intent of the parties0 4he policy cannot be construed piecemeal0 Certain stipulations cannot be segregated and then made to control9 neither do particular words or phrases necessarily determine its character0 Se%tion 2(6) of 2(6) of the Insurance Code de:nes a contract of insurance as an agreement whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent e.ent0 4hus, an insurance insurance contract contract e2ists e2ists where the following following elements elements concur' concur' #0 4he insured has an insurable interest9 *0 4he insured is sub3ect to a risk of loss by the happening of the designated peril9 +0 4he insurer assumes the risk9 ;0 2es his signature or his /adhesion/ thereto0 Conse!uently, any ambiguity therein is resol.ed against the insurer, or construed liberally in fa.or of the insured0
