In the case of an accidental loss of life or limb while traveling on a common carrier during a covered trip, Common Carrier AD&D provides a cash settlement.
Any public and ticketed transportation, such as an airplane, bus, or train, is considered a Common Carrier. If a traveler is driving their own car, flying their own plane, or working as crew, coverage is usually excluded.
This coverage pays out more than 24 Hour AD&D but less than Flight Only AD&D.
Please keep in mind that each policy’s coverage and qualifying restrictions for this benefit vary. The providers that offer Common Carrier AD&D coverage are shown in the tables below.
Looking for a policy with Common Carrier AD&D coverage?
Fill up our unique search form with the details of your trip. Select the Common Carrier AD&D filter once you’ve received your results to get the best policy for your trip with the coverage you require.
What is a common carrier accident?
If you die while flying on a commercial plane, taking a public bus, or using another method of public transportation, common carrier accidental death coverage pays your beneficiary a certain amount.
What is considered common carrier in insurance?
A common carrier, such as a trucker, is a business individual or organization that transports people or property from one location to another for a fee. A common carrier, as opposed to contract carriers, transports or handles the commodities of the general population.
What is meant by common carrier?
For a price, they transport individuals or products, and their service is open to the general public. A shipowner, railroad, airline, taxi service, and other common carriers are examples of common carriers. A private carrier, on the other hand, is a person or a business that only agrees to transport passengers or products in specific circumstances. Private carriers differ from common carriers in that they do not specify whether or not their service is available to the general public. In other words, private carriers engage into contracts with each customer without assuming that the next consumer will be offered a comparable contract.
What is the difference between a common carrier and a private carrier?
A contract carrier is a company that agrees to transport people or property from one location to another for a certain reason alone. A private carrier does not advertise itself as being available and willing to convey the general public; it only transports by specific agreement, and it is not obligated to service everyone who applies. A common carrier, on the other hand, advertises itself to the public as being willing to transport anyone who seeks its services.
What are the rights of a common carrier?
A common carrier of commodities has the right to demand payment for the carriage before receiving the items in all instances. The common carrier may refuse to take possession of the goods if payment is not received. If the carrier takes possession of them without receiving payment for the hire, the carrier may be able to repossess it after the transfer has taken place. Freight is the term used to describe the payment that is owed for the transportation of goods by water. A lien on the goods for hire is also available to the transporter, which can be waived. The right to the lien cannot be reinstated once it has been renounced. For the hiring or freight of goods, the consignor or shipper is obligated to the carrier. When the consignee agrees to pay it, they are held accountable. The items are to be delivered to the consignee or those assigned by the consignee and those paying the freight, according to most bills of lading. The consignee and their assigns are impliedly committed to pay the freight by accepting the goods. The consignor is also responsible for paying the freight.
Are common carriers liable for injuries to passengers?
We’ll now talk about common carrier liability in circumstances where a common carrier employee or a co-passenger causes the passenger’s death or injury.
According to the legislation, common carriers are accountable for the deaths or injuries of passengers caused by the carelessness or willful conduct of their employees, even if such personnel acted outside of their power or in defiance of the common carriers’ directives. This liability is necessitated once again by common carriers’ duty of extraordinary diligence in safely transporting their passengers. Unlike in most circumstances, this liability continues even if the common carrier can show that it selected and supervised its employees with the care and diligence of a good father of a family (Article 1763, Civil Code of the Philippines).
The taxi driver attacked and killed his customer in one case ruled by the Supreme Court. Despite the taxi driver’s conviction in a separate criminal case, the Court found the taxi operator/common carrier liable for damages when the victim’s mother filed a claim. The common carrier asserted non-liability, claiming the death was an unfortunate circumstance. It also cited another Supreme Court case (Gillaco, et al v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. L-8034, 18 November 1955), in which a train passenger was shot and murdered by a Manila Railroad Company employee without the railroad company being held accountable for damages.
If the passenger’s death or injury is caused by another passenger, the common carrier’s obligation for damages is determined by whether its employees used ordinary care to prevent or stop the act or omission that caused the death or injury. There are two pivotal cases in this debate that are worth mentioning.
The first is the case of G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. v. Heirs of Romeo L. Battung, Sr., G.R. No. 208802, decided on October 14, 2015. Even if the passenger died on the bus it was operating, the common carrier was not held liable in this case. Another passenger shot the aforementioned passenger, who alighted with his buddy shortly after the incident. The accused brought the firearm into the bus in a clandestine manner. There was also no evidence that the killer did anything unusual throughout the voyage that would have alerted the common carrier’s workers to the necessity to do comprehensive checks on him or any of the passengers. In light of these considerations, the Court held that, while the law requires common carriers to exercise the utmost diligence in the safe transportation of their passengers and creates a presumption of negligence against them, it does not make the carrier an insurer of the passengers’ absolute safety.
Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119756, 18 November 1999, is the other case. In contrast to the Battung case, the Court found the common carrier liable for damages for the death of a passenger who was shot by suspects posing as passengers, despite the fact that the carrier had been told that the suspects were preparing to hijack and burn some of its buses. Regardless, it did nothing to ensure the safety of its passengers. The common carrier and its staff would not have missed the fact that the criminals had a considerable amount of gasoline on them and were planning to commit an illegal act if they had been watchful and taken simple precautions.
There have been cases where the passenger’s negligence contributed to his death or injury. However, under the law, contributory carelessness does not prohibit collection of damages if the proximate cause is the common carrier’s negligence. Nonetheless, the amount of damages must be decreased equally. The train that the deceased passenger boarded was so overcrowded that he and many other passengers had no choice but to sit on the open platforms between the train’s coaches, according to the case of Philippine National Railways v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55347, 04 October 1985. As a result, the passenger died after falling off the train. While the common carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence, the Court found that the deceased was liable for contributory fault. He should have grabbed hard and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of the platform to avoid falling off the rushing train because he chose to sit on the open platform between the railway’s coaches. While such contributory carelessness did not absolve the PNR of liability, it did justify the removal of the amount awarded as moral and exemplary damages.
It’s worth noting that, despite the responsibility and strict liability imposed by law on common carriers, commuters must nonetheless play a role in avoiding injury to themselves and their fellow passengers by being smart and cautious. While car accidents are likely to occur, they are not unavoidable if both common carriers and commuters work together to create a safe public transportation system.