SUN INSURANCE v CA (LIM)
July 12, 1992 | Cruz, J. | | Death
PETITIONER: SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., petitioner
RESPONDENT: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NERISSA LIM, respondents.
SUMMARY: Lim accidentally killed himself with his gun after removing the magazine, showing off, pointing the gun at his
secretary, and pointing the gun at his temple. The widow, the beneficiary, sued the petitioner and won 200,000 as indemnity with
additional amounts for other damages and attorneys fees. This was sustained in the Court of Appeals then sent to the Supreme
court by the insurance company. Court held that it was an accident. Sun Insurance must pay widow.
DOCTRINE: An accident is an event which happens without any human agency or, if happening through human agency, an event
which, under the circumstances, is unusual to and not expected by the person to whom it happens. It has also been defined as an
injury which happens by reason of some violence or casualty to the injured without his design, consent, or voluntary co-operation.
I.
Widow eligible to receive benefits. It was an accident.
An accident is an event which happens without any human
agency or, if happening through human agency, an event
which, under the circumstances, is unusual to and not
expected by the person to whom it happens.
As the secretary testified, Lim had removed the magazine
from the gun and believed it was no longer dangerous. He
expressly assured her that the gun was not loaded. Lim did
not expose himself to needless peril. It was an accident.
Lim was unquestionably negligent and that negligence cost
him his own life. But it should not prevent his widow from
recovering from the insurance policy he obtained precisely
against accident. There is nothing in the policy that relieves
the insurer of the responsibility to pay the indemnity agreed
upon if the insured is shown to have contributed to his own
accident
II.
- In order that a person may be made liable to the payment of
moral damages, the law requires that his act be wrongful.
The adverse result of an action does not per se make the act
wrongful and subject the act or to the payment of moral
damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty
on the right to litigate; such right is so precious that moral
damages may not be charged on those who may exercise it
erroneously. For these the law taxes costs.
- If a party wins, he cannot, as a rule, recover
attorney's fees and litigation expenses, since it
is not the fact of winning alone that entitles him
to recover such damages of the exceptional
circumstances enumerated in Art. 2208.
Otherwise, every time a defendant wins,
automatically the plaintiff must pay attorney's
fees thereby putting a premium on the right to
litigate which should not be so. For those
FACTS:
1. Sun Insurance issued Personal Accident Policy to Felix Lim
Jr with face value of 200k.
2. 2 months later, he was found dead with a bullet wound on his
head. He was playing with the gun with the magazine removed.
He pointed it his secretary who told him to point it away from
her because it might be loaded. He assured her that it isnt and
pointed it to his temple. Boom, shot himself in the head.
3. Wife sought payment on the policy but was rejected. Widow
then sued petitioner.
4. Yap took out, without notice to or consent from Sun
Insurance, another insurance policy from Federal Insurance.
5. The petitioner also cites one of the four exceptions provided
for in the insurance contract and contends that the private
petitioner's claim is barred by such provision. It is there stated:
Exceptions
The company shall not be liable in respect of
1.
Bodily injury
xxx
xxx
b.
consequent upon
i)
The insured person attempting to commit suicide or
willfully exposing himself to needless peril except in an attempt
to save human life.
6. Petitioner insists that by pointing the gun to his head, Lim
was exposing himself to needless peril.
ISSUE/S:
I. Was Lims widow eligible to receive the benefits?
II. Were the other damages valid?
expenses, the law deems the award of costs as
sufficient.
xxx
RATIO:
