Practice question
A property policy is already in force. Its owner requests a later increase in coverage and knowingly gives a fabricated occupancy statement material to that modification. The insurer proves fraudulent intent by clear and convincing evidence and acts before any action on the contract. No other bar applies. The owner argues that the representation chapter can never govern a later modification. Which response is correct?
- Section47 extends the chapter to modifications; the fact that the original policy predates the statement creates no categorical immunity
- Section47 expressly exempts all modifications
- Only statements on the first application can ever be evaluated
- A fraudulent modification statement is automatically true because coverage already existed
- A later statement cannot be material under any circumstances
Legal references
- Insurance Code as amended RA10607: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10607_2013.html Sections44–48.
- Insular Life Assurance v. Heirs of Alvarez, GR207526 and210156, October3 2018, Leonen MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/oct2018/gr_207526_2018.html PartI.C: fraudulent-intent burden under Section45.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.