Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Company

Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Company

Ratings: (0)|Views: 38 |Likes:
Published by Man2x Salomon
These are some important case digests on Law on Insurance
These are some important case digests on Law on Insurance

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Man2x Salomon on Jun 27, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Digested by: Kwin AsuntoSubject: InsuranceTitle: Young vs. Midland Textile insurance company[G.R. No. 9370. March 31, 1915.]K. S. YOUNG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE MIDLAND TEXTILE INSURANCE COMPANY, defendant-appellantTopic: Warranties: violation of material warranty, effectFacts:The purpose of the present action is to recover the sum of P3,000 upon an insurance policy. Thelower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P2,708.78, and costs. From that judgment the defendant appealed to this court.The undisputed facts upon which said action is based are as follows:The plaintiff occupied a building at '321 Calle Claveria, as a residence and bodega (storehouse).On the 29th of May, 1912, the defendant, in consideration of the payment of a premium of P60, enteredinto a contract of insurance with the plaintiff promising to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P3,000, in casesaid residence and bodega and contents should be destroyed by fire. One of the conditions of saidcontract was that no hazardous goods be stored or kept in the building.On the 4th or 5th of February, 1913, the plaintiff placed in said residence and bodega threeboxes which belonged to him and which were filled with fireworks for the celebration of the Chinesenew year.On the 18th day of March, 1913, said residence and bodega and the contents thereof werepartially destroyed. Fireworks were found in a part of the building not destroyed by the fire; that they inno way contributed to the fire, or to the loss occasioned thereby.Issue:Whether or not the placing of said fireworks in the building insured, under the conditions aboveenumerated, they being "hazardous goods," is a violation of the terms of the contract of insurance.Held:Yes.The word "stored" has been defined to be a deposit in a store or warehouse for preservation orsafe keeping; to put away for future use, especially for future consumption; to place in a warehouse orother place of deposit for safe keeping. Said definition does not include a deposit in a store, in smallquantities, for daily use. "Daily use" precludes the idea of deposit for preservation or safe keeping, aswell as a deposit for future consumption or safe keeping.A violation of the terms of a contract of insurance, by either party, will constitute the basis for atermination of the contractual relations, at the election of the other. The right to terminate thecontractual relations exists even though the violation was not the direct cause of the loss. In the presentcase, the deposit of the "hazardous goods," in the building insured, was a violation of the terms of thecontract. Although the hazardous goods did not contribute to the loss, the insurer, at his election, wasrelieved from liability Said deposit created a new risk, not included in the terms of the contract. Theinsurer had neither been paid, nor had he entered into a contract, to cover the increased risk.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->