Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Harding Vs Commercial Union
Harding Vs Commercial Union
In February 1916, Mrs. Harding applied for car insurance for a Studebaker she
received as a gift from her husband. She was assisted by Smith, Bell, and Co.
which
was
the
duly
authorized
representative
(insurance agent)
The cars value was estimated with the help of an experienced mechanic (Mr.
Server) of the Luneta Garage. The car was bought by Mr. Harding for
P2,800.00.
Commercial Union also stated that the car does not belong to Mrs. Harding
because such a gift [from her husband] is void under the Civil Code.
The statement made by Mrs. Harding as to the cost of the car is not
awarranty.
The evidence does not prove that the statement is false. In fact, the evidence
shows that the cost of the car is more than the price of the insurance.
The car was bought for P2,800.00 and then thereafter, Luneta Garage made
some repairs and body paints which amounted to P900.00. Mr. Server
attested that the car is as good as new at the time the insurance was
effected.
Commercial Union, upon the information given by Mrs. Harding, and after an
inspection of the automobile by its examiner, having agreed that it was worth
P3,000, is bound by this valuation in the absence of fraud on the part of the
insured.