Scribd
Upload
85 views1 page

Case Title: Gulf Resorts vs. Pcic G.R. No. 156167, May 16, 2005

Gulf Resorts filed an insurance claim for damage to its properties from an earthquake, but the claim was denied except for damage to two swimming pools. Gulf Resorts argued that its insurance policy provided earthquake coverage for all insured properties with no limitations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that the contract was not one of adhesion that should be interpreted in favor of the insured, and that the policy only covered earthquake damage to the two swimming pools.

Uploaded by

Brey Velasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views1 page

Case Title: Gulf Resorts vs. Pcic G.R. No. 156167, May 16, 2005

Gulf Resorts filed an insurance claim for damage to its properties from an earthquake, but the claim was denied except for damage to two swimming pools. Gulf Resorts argued that its insurance policy provided earthquake coverage for all insured properties with no limitations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that the contract was not one of adhesion that should be interpreted in favor of the insured, and that the policy only covered earthquake damage to the two swimming pools.

Uploaded by

Brey Velasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case Title: GULF RESORTS vs.

PCIC
G.R. No. 156167, May 16, 2005
(Puno, J.)

Facts:

Gulf Resorts, Inc., at Agoo, La Union was insured with American Home
Assurance Company which includes loss or damage to shock to any of the property
insured by this Policy occasioned by or through or in consequence of earthquake. On
August 23, 1990, Gulf's claim was denied on the ground that its insurance policy only
afforded earthquake shock coverage to the two swimming pools of the resort.

Petitioner contends that pursuant to this rider, no qualifications were placed on


the scope of the earthquake shock coverage. Thus, the policy extended earthquake
shock coverage to all of the insured properties.

Issue/s:

Whether the petitioner can claim for its other properties aside from the two
swimming pools.

Held:

The Court held that the contract between the parties is not that of a contract of
adhesion and that the petitioner cannot rely on the general rule that insurance contracts
are contracts of adhesion which should be liberally construed in favor of the insured
and strictly against the insurer company which usually prepares it.

You might also like