E.

CONCEALMENT AND REPRESENTATION

Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs Serafin Feliciano (1941)
FACTS:
Evaristo Feliciano was issued an insurance policy by Insular Life. In September 1935, he
died. His heirs (Serafin Feliciano et al) filed an insurance claim but Insular Life denied the
application as it averred that Felicianos application was attended by fraud. It was later found
in court that the insurance agent and the medical examiner of Insular Life who assisted
Feliciano in signing the application knew that Feliciano was already suffering from
tuberculosis; that they were aware of the true medical condition of Feliciano yet they still
made it appear that he was healthy in the insurance application form; that Feliciano signed
the application in blank and the agent filled the information for him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Insular Life can avoid the insurance policy by reason of the fact that
its agent knowingly and intentionally wrote down the answers in the application differing from
those made by Feliciano hence instead of serving the interests of his principal, acts in his own
or anothers interest and adversely to that of his principal.
HELD: No. Insular Life must pay the insurance policy. The weight of authority is that if an
agent of the insurer, after obtaining from an applicant for insurance a correct and truthful
answer to interrogatories contained in the application for insurance, without knowledge of the
applicant fills in false answers, either fraudulently or otherwise, the insurer cannot assert the
falsity of such answers as a defense to liability on the policy, and this is true generally without
regard to the subject matter of the answers or the nature of the agents duties or limitations on
his authority, at least if not brought to the attention of the applicant.
The fact that the insured did not read the application which he signed, is not indicative of bad
faith. It has been held that it is not negligence for the insured to sign an application without
first reading it if the insurer by its conduct in appointing the agent influenced the insured to
place trust and confidence in the agent.
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs Serafin Feliciano (1943)
FACTS:
From the courts decision rendered in the case of Insular Life Assurance vs Feliciano (1941),
Insular Life filed a motion for reconsideration. Insular avers that Feliciano is not entitled to the
claim because the insurance policy is void ab initio; that he connived with the insurance agent
and the medical examiner; and that at best, Feliciano is only entitled to refund or the
reimbursement of what he has paid in premium.
ISSUE: Whether or not Insular Life is correct.
HELD: Yes. This time, the Supreme Court held that Insular Lifes contention is correct. When
Evaristo Feliciano, the applicant for insurance, signed the application in blank and authorized
the soliciting agent and/or medical examiner of Insular to write the answers for him, he made
them his own agents for that purpose, and he was responsible for their acts in that
connection. If they falsified the answers for him, he could not evade the responsibility for the
falsification. He was not supposed to sign the application in blank. He knew that the answers
to the questions therein contained would be the basis of the policy, and for that very reason
he was required with his signature to vouch for truth thereof.