This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Recall that petitioner's main cause of action under the complaint was based on both the Marine Risk Note and the Open Policy. The Subrogation Receipt[37] clearly states that the amount paid was in full settlement of LMG's claim under petitioner's Marine Risk Note Number RN-001-17551. The Marine Risk Note, however, is not the insurance policy. It merely constitutes an acknowledgment or declaration of the shipper about the specific shipment covered by the marine insurance policy, the evaluation of the cargo and the chargeable premium.[38] The marine open policy is the blanket insurance to be undertaken by the insurer on all goods to be shipped by the consignee during the existence of the contract. | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Before anything else, it must be emphasized that a marine risk note is not an insurance policy. It is only an acknowledgment or declaration of the insurer confirming the specific shipment covered by its marine open policy, the evaluation of the cargo and the chargeable premium.[19] In International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corporation (International),[20] the nature of a marine cargo risk note was explained, thus: x x x It is the marine open policy which is the main insurance contract. In other words, the marine open policy is the blanket insurance to be undertaken by FGU on all goods to be shipped by RAGC during the existence of the contract, while the marine risk note specifies the particular goods/shipment insured by FGU on that specific transaction, including the sum insured, the shipment particulars as well as the premium paid for such shipment. x x x.[21] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Certainly it would be obtuse for us to even entertain the idea that the insurance contract between Malayan and ABB Koppel was actually constituted by the Marine Risk Note alone. We find guidance on this point in Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Philippine American General Insurance, Co.,[26] where a trial court had relied on the contents of a marine risk note, not the insurance policy itself, in dismissing a complaint. For this act, the Court faulted the trial court in "[obviously mistaking] said Marine Risk Note as an insurance policy when it is not."[27] The Court proceeded to characterize the marine risk note therein as "an acknowledgment or declaration of the private respondent confirming the specific shipment covered by its Marine Open Policy, the evaluation of the cargo, and the chargeable premium,"[28] a description that is reflective as well of the present Marine Risk Note, if not of marine risk notes in this country in general. | |||||