GR 100970; (September, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992
FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JULIA SURPOSA, respondents.
FACTS
On October 22, 1986, Carlie Surposa was insured under Finman General Teachers Protection Plan Master Policy No. 2005 and Individual Policy No. 08924 with petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation. The beneficiaries were his parents and brothers. While the policy was in force, Carlie Surposa died on October 18, 1988 from a stab wound inflicted by one of three unidentified men without provocation or warning. He and his cousin were waiting for a ride home in Bacolod City after attending the “Maskarra Annual Festival.” The beneficiaries filed a claim, which the insurance company denied, contending that murder and assault are not within the policy’s coverage. Private respondent Julia Surposa filed a complaint with the Insurance Commission, which ordered the petitioner to pay the proceeds of P15,000.00 with interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the death of the insured, Carlie Surposa, resulting from a stab wound inflicted by an unidentified assailant (murder/assault), is covered by the personal accident insurance policy.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The terms “accident” and “accidental” in insurance contracts are construed in their ordinary meaning as events that happen by chance, fortuitously, without intention and design, and are unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. The death of Carlie Surposa was an accident from his perspective; it was an event that took place without his foresight or expectation while he was simply on his way home. The principle of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” applies. The insurance policy enumerated ten specific circumstances excluding liability. Since murder and assault were not expressly included in these exclusions, they cannot be implied to discharge the insurer from liability. Furthermore, contracts of insurance are construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Any ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of the beneficiary. Therefore, petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation is liable to pay the insurance proceeds.