Insurance firm ordered to pay P2.1M to car theft victim
The Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay at least P2.1 million to a man who lost his vehicle to theft even though it was eventually recovered.
In a 38-page decision made public on Tuesday, the high court’s Third Division reinstated a trial court ruling that granted the insurance claim of Wilfrido Wijangco.
This was after the Supreme Court found out that UCPB General Insurance Co. Inc. caused unreasonable delay by taking 162 days to act on Wijangco’s claim, even though he had submitted the required documents. When it finally responded, the vehicle was already in the custody of investigating authorities.
The complainant owned a 2003 Jaguar X-Type, mortgaged with the AMA Rural Bank of Mandaluyong and insured with UCPB for P1.8 million from 2006 to 2007.
On Aug. 24, 2006, his son Andrew was forced to give up the car to two men who held him up at gunpoint in a parking lot. Andrew and a friend immediately reported the incident to the police.
Letter of protest
Wijangco filed a claim with UCPB Insurance soon after, but it was not processed until March 2007, when he wrote to the bank to protest the delay.
The UCPB informed him that the vehicle had been recovered and was in the custody of the Philippine National Police’s Traffic Management Group (TMG) Special Operations Division-Task Force Limbas. It said his claim would not proceed unless he submitted himself to a TMG investigation clearance.
Protesting the lack on action on his claim, Wijangco filed a complaint against the insurer for violation of the Civil Code and Presidential Decree No. 612, as amended by Republic Act No. 10607 (Insurance Code), and for damages.
In 2016, a regional trial court ruled in his favor and ordered the UCPB to pay him P1.8 million, on top of P200,000 in moral and exemplary damages, plus the cost of the lawsuit.
But the Court of Appeals overturned the ruling in 2020, saying Wijangco failed to prove the total loss of the vehicle since it was recovered.
In elevating the case to the Supreme Court, the complainant argued that neither the insurance policy nor the list of claim requirements required him to submit a clearance from the TMG.
In its comment, UCPB Insurance maintained the appellate court was correct, insisting that no car theft occurred based on the TMG investigation report.
It also said Wijangco failed to meet mandatory obligations under the policy by not immediately reporting the car theft to the police.
The Supreme Court, however, sided with the regional trial court and held that the insurance company was liable to Wijangco under the policy.
It cited Section 249 of the Insurance Code, which requires insurers, within 90 days after receipt of proof of loss, to determine whether the loss was caused by a covered peril under the insurance contract. It also ruled the insured vehicle was lost through theft, a covered risk under the policy, even if it was eventually recovered.
