The right of the insurer to submit can be transferred in different ways: Dear Agot, Cancellation is one way to change civil obligations, especially when a creditor`s rights are transferred to a third party (Article 1291, paragraph 3, and Article 1303, New Civil Code of the Philippines). Under-cutting may be legal or conventional. A legal assignment is not presumed, unless that is expressly the case in our code. (Article 1300, d. The transfer is the replacement of a person or group by another person in respect of a claim or a right to insurance, accompanied by the transfer of all rights and obligations related to it. It is a rule established in Philippine law. In PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petition, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and Al.1, the court listed the recognized exceptions to the rule of offence: art. 1633. For his part, the Vendéen reimburses the seller for all that he may have paid for the debts and taxes on the estate and is sufficient for the credits he may have against him, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. (1534) Art. 1302. It is thought that there is a legal assignment: art.
1837. If the dissolution is caused in one way or another, with the exception of the breach of the shareholder contract, any partner may, with respect to its partners and all persons who, in their regard, avail themselves of their interests in the partnership, unless otherwise agreed, enforce the ownership of the company to the performance of its debts and the surplus used in cash to pay the net amount of the partners concerned. However, if the dissolution is caused by the expulsion of a partner in good faith under the partnership agreement, and the displaced partner receives only the net amount of the cash partnership, by payment or agreement covered by Article 1835, paragraph 2. “There are a few recognized exceptions to this rule. If z.B. the author or third party promised by his own deed is exempt from liability in the event of loss or damage, the insurer`s right to abstain is sedition [Phoenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn v. Erie – Western Transport, Co., 117 US 312, 29 L.
Ed. 873 (1886); Insurance Company of North America v. Elgin, Joliet – Eastern Railway Co., 229 F 2d 705 (1956)]. If the insurer pays the guaranteed value of the lost goods without informing the carrier who paid the right to the insured`s loss in good faith, the transaction is binding on both the insured and the insurer, which cannot sue the airline over its right of absence [McCarthy v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., 45 Phil. 488 (1923)]. And if the insurer pays the insured for a loss that does not represent a risk covered by the policy, resulting in a “voluntary payment,” the former is not entitled to the transfer to the third party responsible for the loss [Sveriges Angfartys Assurans Forening v. Qua Chee Gan, G.R. No. L-22146, September 5, 1967, 21 SCRA 12].
All of this is supported by the Supreme Court`s decision in Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (601 SCRA 96) of 2009, in which the highest court ruled that the assignment was the replacement of a person with a legitimate claim or right, so that the crown applies to the other`s rights with respect to an application or application. , including its remedial measures or securities. The principle applies to a case in which an insurer has paid damage under an insurance policy that is entitled to all the rights and remedies that the insured has with respect to a third party with respect to the losses covered by the policy. It is considering a full substitution to follow in the creditor`s footsteps, and it can use any means the creditor could use to enforce the payment.