NO. And this is the story.
On August 24, 2006 at around 5pm, while Willie was inside his car at the parking lot of Tropical Hut, Sucat, Parañaque, two unidentified men held him at gunpoint; they forcibly got his car and sped away.
After recovering his composure, he called a friend to relay the car-napping that took place. Then they proceeded to the nearest Police Office to report the incident and have it entered into the police blotter.
The following day, the police station issued an Alarm Sheet.
On September 1, 2006, Willie filed a claim with his Insurer – UP Insurance (UPI). He subsequently filed all the required claim requirements on October 10, 2006.
Despite several follow-ups, UPI denied his insurance claim. He protested the delay in the processing of his claim and made a formal demand against the Insurer.
On March 21, 2007, he received a letter from UPI informing him that his vehicle was recovered and was under the custody of the Traffic Management Group (TMG) of the PNP.
As he was given a ran-around, he filed a Complaint against UPI with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The RTC gave credence to the witnesses of Willie and held that the subject vehicle was indeed stolen as it would not have been at the impounding area of the TMG. The RTC ordered UPI to indemnify Willie because of the loss of the subject vehicle.
UPI filed an Appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC ruling. It held that Willie failed to prove the total loss of the vehicle because it was recovered and was in the custody of the TMG.
The case was eventually elevated to the Supreme Court, which ruled:
“Anent the subsequent recovery of the subject vehicle, the Court finds that it is immaterial to the present case. Common sense dictates that the mere recovery of a stolen vehicle does not and will not erase the fact of theft. Several cases decided by the Court also laid down the rule that the subsequent recovery of a stolen motor vehicle does not negate theft, which is perfected from the moment of unlawful taking.
x x x
The Court reiterates that Section 249 of the Insurance Code sets a definite time within which payment of the insurance claim must be made. When this period has elapsed and before the insured vehicle is recovered, payment for the loss of the vehicle is fixed and the insured cannot be compelled to receive the vehicle despite its recovery. The period to indemnify the insured for a lost vehicle is set by law because motor vehicle insurance contracts would be of insignificant value if the insured, who has a theft policy in his favor, should be forced to indefinitely wait on the chance of having the stolen vehicle recovered, or be compelled to incur the expense of buying a new vehicle and thereafter take the old one if recovered.”
Hence, it is must be remembered that there is a definite time within which payment of the insurance claim must be made by the Insurer.
Next story please. And stay safe.
For questions or comments, email the writer at atty.joeytbanday@gmail.com.