{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

83 so benguet sued union paflu and their respective

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: t showed that 600 out of the 1250 bags were damaged by the tearin of the sodes of those bags and that some contents are partly empty. Chua filed a formal statement of claim againts Smith Bell Co, Inc. with proof of loss and a demand for settlement of the losses in he sum of USD7357.80. After purportedly conveying the claim to its principal, Smith Bell informed Chua that its principal offered only 50% of the claim as redress on the alleged ground of discrepancy between the shippin agent's report and that of Metroport's. The offer, not beig acceptable to Chua, expressed his refusal to he 'redress offer'. No settlement of the claim having been made, Chua filed a case. Denying any liability, Smith Bell averred that it is merely a settling or claim agent of First Insurance Co., Ltd. And as such agent, it is not personally liable under the policy in which it has not even taken part of. TC: TC ruled for Chua saying that he has fully established the liability of the insurance firm. As regards Smith Bell, since it is admittedly a claim agent of the foreign insurance firm doing business in the Philippines justice is better served if said agent is made liable without prejudice to its right of action against its principal, the insurance firm. CA: Affirmed TC's decision ISSUE: W/N a local settling or claim agent of a disclosed principal can be held jointly and severally liable with said principal under the latter's marine cargo insurance policy, given that the agent is not a party to the insurance contract? HELD: No. Petitioner, undisputedly a settling agent acting within the scope of its authority, cannot be held personally and /or solidarily liable for the obligations of its disclosed principal merely because therw is allegedly a need for a speedy settlement of the claim. 3 Reasons: 1. Existing Jurisprudence: It was held in Salonga v Warner, Barnes & Co. Ltd that settlement and adjustment agent of the foreign insurance company should not be held personally liable under said policy. His functions are merely to settle and adjust claims in behalf of his princ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}