G.R. No.L-17312 November 29, 1965
Lessons Applicable: Definition and Coverage of Casualty Insurance (Insurance)
Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
- While Tanco's automobile was driven by his brother Manuel Tanco, who at the time didn't have a valid license since it was not renewed until the next week, had a collision with a pick-up delivery van at the southern approach of the Jones bridge
- The repairs cost P2,536.99 so he filed a claim against the insurance company which was rejected
- He filed a claim in the Municipal Court of Manila and elevated to the Court of First Instance of Manila on Appeal which favored Tanco
- exception clause "the company shall not be liable in respect of any accident, loss, damage or liability caused, sustained or incurred ... whilst (the insured vehicle) is ... being driven by or is for the purpose of being driven by him in the charge of any person other than an Authorized Driver.
- Authorized Driver" to be the insured himself and "(b) any person driving on the Insured's order or with his permission, provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle or has been permitted and is not disqualified by order of a court of law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving such Motor Vehicle.
ISSUE: W/N the Tanco can claim because it was not covered by the exemption clause
HELD: NO. appealed from is reversed, with costs
- The exclusion clause in the contract invoked by appellant is clear. It does not refer to violations of law in general, which indeed would tend to render automobile insurance practically a sham, but to a specific situation where a person other than the insured himself, even upon his order or with his permission, drives the motor vehicle without a license or with one that has already expired. No principle of law or of public policy militates against the validity of such a provision.