The Ayala Land Inc. has lost its bid to have an insurance company liable for the explosion in Glorietta 2 in 2007.
This came after the Supreme Court’s First Division denied the petition filed by Ayala Land for failure to show that the Court of Appeals erred in its decision dated April 13, 2018 and resolution dated Aug. 7, 2018 that upheld the Jan. 26, 2017 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65, dismissing ALI’s complaint for specific performance and damages against Standard Insurance.
In a five-page extended minute resolution, the SC ruled that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court generally bars any question pertaining to factual issues raised.
The high court also held that it is a settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect specially where both the RTC and the CA are in agreement that Ayala Land cannot recover from its the Commercial “All Risks” Collective Policy (COMMAR Policy) with Standard Insurance since the loss or damage of the property insured was caused by an excluded peril under the policy.
Under the COMMAR policy, Standard Insurance undertook to indemnify Ayala Land in any sudden and accidental physical destruction or damage of its property except if the damage or destruction was caused by an excluded risk.
These “excluded risks” include pollution, war, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations, mutiny, and acts of terrorism.
The high tribunal noted that the general rule is that the insured has the burden of proof to show that the loss or damage was caused by a covered peril, but that in case of an “all-risk policy insurance,” the insurer has the duty to establish that the loss or damage falls within the excluded risk or perils. “Here, Standard Insurance has discharged its burden by proving that the destruction of the Glorietta 2 was caused by an excluded peril,” the SC declared.
The tribunal held that Ayala Land had numerously declared, and as found by its own investigators, that the explosion was caused by an explosive device, which constituted as an act of terrorism.
It noted that Ayala Land even released an official press statement stating its disappointment as to the finding of Multi-Agency Task Force that the cause of the explosion was the build-up of methane gas and diesel vapor at the basement and not due to an explosive device.
“To suddenly claim that the explosion was not caused by an explosive device simply because Malayan Insurance denied its claim under its Terrorism policy with the latter is merely an afterthought that cannot be considered by this Court,” the high court said.
The SC also held that even if it were to rule that the explosion was caused by the build-up of methane gas and diesel vapor at the basement as alleged by Ayala Land, the same does not help Ayala Land’s cause because pollution of whatever cause is also an excluded peril under its policy with Standard Insurance.
