Photo from Unsplash | Cytonn Photography
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Double insurance is not contrary to law and hence, the insurers may still be liable. In double insurance, the insurers are considered as co-insurers. Each one is bound to contribute ratably to the loss in proportion to the amount for which he is liable under his contract. This is known as the “principle of contribution” or “contribution clause.” (Sec. 96(e), IC)
In the intricate world of risk management, where financial safety nets are woven with precision, the concept of double insurance emerges as a fascinating paradox—a safeguard against risk that, in its own way, mirrors the complexity of life’s uncertainties. Imagine double insurance as a clever balancing act, a duet of policies that harmonize to create a robust shield against potential losses. It’s like having two locks on a door for added security, each working in tandem to fortify protection. While one might think that more insurance means more safety, double insurance offers an intriguing blend of reassurance and regulation, ensuring that when the unexpected strikes, the safety net doesn’t just hold but is fortified by the careful interplay of multiple coverage layers. In this dance of double protection, each policy is both a guardian and a collaborator, crafting a symphony of security against the unpredictable currents of life.
Double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers separately, in respect to the same subject and interest. (Sec. 95, IC)
As held in the case of Malayan Insurance Co. v. Philippine First Insurance Co., (G.R. No. 184300, 11 July 2012) there is no double insurance even though two policies were both issued over the same subject matter, and both covered the same peril insured against if the two policies were issued to two different entities which have separate and distinct insurable interest over the said subject matter.
Double insurance is not contrary to law and hence, the insurers may still be liable. In double insurance, the insurers are considered as co-insurers. Each one is bound to contribute ratably to the loss in proportion to the amount for which he is liable under his contract. This is known as the “principle of contribution” or “contribution clause.” (Sec. 96(e), IC)
As the final act unfolds in the intricate play of double insurance, the liability of insurers reveals itself as both a challenge and a testament to the complexities of risk management. In this dual-layered scenario, insurers are tasked with navigating a delicate equilibrium, balancing their obligations while ensuring fairness and clarity in coverage. The interplay between multiple policies demands a precise choreography of responsibility, where each insurer must harmonize their contributions to effectively address claims without stepping on each other’s toes.
Related Article/s:
What is the difference between double insurance and over insurance?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.