O, value of the insurance of the motor vehicle in question and to pay the costs. On November 26, 1969, the plaintiff filed a “Motion for Immediate Execution Pending Appeal. ” It was opposed by the defendant, but was granted by the trial court on December 15, 1969. Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff is authorized driver under insurance code?? Held: There is no merit in the appellant’s allegation that the plaintiff was not authorized to drive the insured motor vehicle because his driver’s license had expired. The driver of the insured motor vehicle at the time of the accident was, the insured himself, hence an “authorized driver” under the policy.
While the Motor Vehicle Law prohibits person from operating a motor vehicle on the highway without a license or with an expired license, an infraction of the Motor Vehicle Law on the part of the insured, is not a bar to recovery under the insurance contract. It however renders him subject to the penal sanctions of the Motor Vehicle Law. The requirement that the driver be “permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle and is not disqualified from driving such motor vehicle by order of a Court of Law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf,” applies only hen the driver” is driving on the insured’s order or with his permission. ” It does not apply when the person driving is the insured himself. 00 SACRA 467 Violators had her Colt Lancer car insured with Empire Mispronunciation against own damage, theft and 3rd party liability. While the car was in the repair shop, one of the employees of the said repair shop took it out for a Joyride after which deferred in a vehicular accident. This resulted to the death of thrived and some of the passengers as well as to extensiveness’s to the car. Violators filed a claim for total loss with the said mispronunciation. However, it denied the claim on the ground that detachment did not fall within the provisions of the policy either for the Own Damage or Theft coverage, invoking the polyclinic’s on “Authorized Driver Clause”.
This was upheld by the Insurance Commission further castigating the car was not stolen and therefore not covered by the Theft Clause because it is not evident that the person who token car for a Joyride intends to permanently deprive the insured’s his/ her car. ISSUE:Whether or not the insurer company should pay the said claim HELD: Yes. Where the insured’s car is wrongfully taken without thunder’s consent room the car service and repair shop to whom had been entrusted for check-up and repairs (assuming thatch taking was for a Joy ride, in the course of which it wastefully smashed in an accident), respondent insurer is liable mandamus pay insured for the total loss of the insured vehicle undertone Theft Clause of the policy.
Assuming, despite the totally inadequate evidence, that tweaking was “temporary’ and for a “Joy ride”, the Court sustains the better view that which holds that when a person, therewith the object of going to a certain place, or learning how drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a bacteriologic to another, without the consent of its owner, he guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personality’s belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain seventies since he derives therefore utility, and pleasure. Accordingly, the appealed decision is set aside and Judgments hereby rendered sentencing private respondent to petitioner the sum of PUP,OHO. O with legal interest from defiling of the complaint until full payment is made and to pay thickets of suit.