This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The forthright text of provision indicates that the security deposit is exempt from levy by a judgment creditor or any other claimant. This exemption has been recognized in several rulings, particularly in Republic v. Del Monte Motors, Inc.,[30] the prequel case for this ruling, where the Court has ruled:x x x As worded, the law expressly and clearly states that the security deposit shall be (1) answerable for all the obligations of the depositing insurer under its insurance contracts; (2) at all times free from any liens or encumbrance; and (3) exempt from levy by any claimant. | |||||
|
2013-07-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Insurers may not be allowed to delay the payment of claims by filing frivolous cases in court, hoping that the inevitable may be put off for years - or even decades by the pendency of these unnecessary court cases. In the meantime, they benefit from collecting the interest and/or returns on both the premiums previously paid by the insured and the insurance proceeds which should otherwise go to their beneficiaries. The business of insurance is a highly regulated commercial activity in the country,[29] and is imbued with public interest.[30] "[A]n insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the [former's] interest."[31] | |||||