7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

1. Paris-Manila Perfume Co. v. Phoenix Assurance Co.(1926)

Facts:

• May 22, 1924: A fre insurance policy was issued by Phoenix Assurance Copany, !iited
to Messrs" Paris#Manila Per$uery Co" %Peter &ohnson, Prop"' $or P1(,)))

o also insured with other insurance copanies $or P1,2)) and P*,))) respecti+ely

•  &uly 4, 1924: he Per$uery was burned un-nown o$ the cause totallin. a loss
o$ P(/")2*"*0

• Phoenix re$used to pay nor to appoint an arbitrator statin. that the policy did not
co+er any loss or daa.e occasioned by explosion and statin. that the clai was
$raudulent

• C: ordered Phoenix to pay P1(,)))

• Phoenix appealed

o
 he insurance policy contains:
nless otherwise expressly stated in the policy the insurance does not co+er

%h' !oss or daa.e occasioned by the explosion3 but loss or daa.e by explosion o$ .as
$or illuinatin. or doestic purposes in a buildin. in which .as is not .enerated and which
does not $or a part o$ any .as wor-s, will be deeed to be loss by fre within the
eanin. o$ this policy"

556: 78 Phoenix should be liable $or the loss because there was no explosion which is an
exeption $ro the policy

6!;: <65"
• $ it be a $act that the fre resulted $ro an explosion that $act, i$ pro+en, would be a
coplete de$ense, the burden o$ the proo$ o$ that $act is upon the de$endant, and upon
that point, there is a $ailure o$ proo$ 

• lower court $ound as a $act that there was no $raud in the insurance, and that the +alue o$ 
the property destroyed by the fre was ore than the aount o$ the insurance"

(" C=< >A?65 5AC6 C=P" @5" !AA >A< B C=MM< M!#PP=56
C==P6A@6, C" "" o"1(0914, &anuary 2*, 2))2

Facts:

Country >an-ers nsurance Corp" %C>C' insured the buildin. o$ respondent !ian.a >ay and
Counity Multi#Purpose Corp", nc" a.ainst fre, loss, daa.e, or liability durin. the period
startin. &une 2), 199) $or the su o$ Php"2)),)))"))" =n &uly 1, 19/9 at about 12:4) in the
ornin. a fre occurred" he respondent fled the insurance clai but the petition denied the
sae on the .round that the buildin. was set on fre by two PA rebels and that such loss was an
excepted ris- under par"0 o$ the conditions o$ the insurance policy that the insurance does not
co+er any loss or daa.e occasioned by aon. others, utiny, riot, ilitary or any uprisin."
espondent fled an action $or reco+ery o$ loss, daa.e or liability a.ainst petitioner and the rial
Court ordered the petition to pay the $ull +alue o$ the insurance"

ssue: 7hether or not the insurance corporation is exepted to pay based on the exception
clause in the insurance policy"

eld: he 5upree Court held that the insurance corporation has the burden o$ proo$ to show
that the loss coes within the pur+iew o$ the exception or liitation set#up" >ut the insurance
corporation cannot use a witness to pro+e that the fre was caused by the PA rebels on the
basis that the witness learned this $ro others" 5uch testiony is considered hearsay and ay

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 1/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

not be recei+ed as proo$ o$ the truth o$ what he has learned" he petitioner, $ailin. to pro+e the
exception, cannot rely upon on exeption or exception clause in the fre insurance policy" he
petition was .ranted"

4" Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. CA !.". #o. $-%6&1%, 26 'eem*er 19++

acs

Malayan nsurance Co" nc" %MA!A<A' issued a Pri+ate Car Coprehensi+e Policy co+erin. a
7illys Deep" he insurance co+era.e was $or Eown daa.eE not to exceed P0))")) and Ethird#
party liabilityE in the aount o$ P2),)))"))" ;urin. the eecti+ity o$ the insurance policy, , the
insured Deep, while bein. dri+en by one &uan P" Capollo an eployee o$ the respondent 5an
!eon ice Mill, nc", %5A !6=' collided with a passen.er bus belon.in. to the respondent
Pan.asinan ransportation Co", nc" %PAAC=' at the national hi.hway in >arrio 5an Pedro,
osales, Pan.asinan, causin. daa.e to the insured +ehicle and inDuries to the dri+er, &uan P"
Capollo, and the respondent Martin C" @alleDos, who was ridin. in the ill#$ated Deep"

Martin C" @alleDos fled an action $or daa.es a.ainst 5io Choy, Malayan nsurance Co", nc" and
the PAAC= be$ore the Court o$ First nstance o$ Pan.asinan" he trial court rendered
 Dud.ent holdin. 5io Choy, 5A !6=, and MA!A<A Dointly and se+erally liable" owe+er,
MA!A<As liability will only be up to P2),)))"

=n appeal, CA aGred the decision o$ the trial court" owe+er, it ruled that 5A !6= has no
obli.ation to indeni$y or reiburse the petitioner insurance copany $or whate+er aount it
has been ordered to pay on its policy, since the 5an !eon ice Mill, nc" is not a pri+y to the
contract o$ insurance between 5io Choy and the insurance copany"

MA!A<A appealed to the 5C by way o$ re+iew on certiorari"

Issues

%1' 7hether or not MA!A<A is solidarily liable to @alleDos, alon. with 5io Choy and 5A !6=

%2' 7hether or not MA!A<A is entitled to be reibursed by 5A !6= $or whate+er aount
petitioner has been adDud.ed to pay respondent @alleDos on its insurance policy"

/el0

%1' =nly 5io Choy and 5A !6= are solidarily liable to @alleDos $or the award o$ daa.es" 5io
Choy is liable as owner o$ the Deep pursuant to Article 21/4, while 5A !6= is liable as the
eployer o$ the dri+er o$ the Deep at the tie o$ the accident pursuant to Art 21/)"

MA!A<As liability, howe+er, arose only out o$ the insurance policy with 5io Choy" Petitioner as
insurer o$ 5io Choy, is liable to respondent @alleDos, but it cannot, as incorrectly held by the trial
court, be ade EsolidarilyE liable with the two principal tort$easors naely respondents 5io Choy
and 5A !6="

%2' MA!A<A is entitled to be reibursed" pon payent o$ the loss, the insurer is entitled to be
subro.ated pro tanto to any ri.ht o$ action which the insured ay ha+e a.ainst the third person
whose ne.li.ence or wron.$ul act caused the loss" 7hen the insurance copany pays $or the
loss, such payent operates as an eHuitable assi.nent to the insurer o$ the property and all
reedies which the insured ay ha+e $or the reco+ery thereo$" hat ri.ht is not dependent
upon , nor does it .row out o$ any pri+ity o$ contract or upon written assi.nent o$ clai, and
payent to the insured a-es the insurer assi.nee in eHuity"

*" @da" ;e abriel +" CA, "" o" 1)(//( o+eber 14, 1990

FAC5:

Marcelino abriel was eployed by 6erald Construction B ;e+elopentCorporation %6erald

Construction $or bre+ity' at its construction proDect in raH" e wasco+ered by a personal accident
insurance in the aount o$ P1)),)))")) under a .rouppolicy procured $ro Fortune nsurance B
5urety Copany %Fortune nsurance $or bre+ity'by 6erald Construction $or its o+erseas wor-ers"

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 2/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

 he insured ris- was $or bodily inDurycaused by +iolent accidental external and +isible eans
which inDury would solely andindependently o$ any other cause result in death or disability"=n 22
May 19/2, within the li$e o$ the policy, abriel died in raH" =n 12 &uly 19/(,6erald Construction
reported abriels death to Fortune nsurance by telephone" Aon.the docuents therea$ter
subitted to Fortune nsurance were a copy o$ the deathcertifcate issued by the Ministry o$ 
ealth o$ the epublic o$ raH which stated that anautopsy report by the ational >ureau o$ 
n+esti.ation was conducted to the eect that dueto ad+anced state o$ postorte
decoposition, the cause o$ death o$ abriel couldnot be deterined"

>ecause o$ this de+elopent Fortune nsurance ultiately denied the clai o$ 6erald
Construction on the .round o$ prescription" abriels widow, &acHueline &ieneI,went to the to
the lower court" n her coplaint a.ainst 6erald Construction and Fortunensurance, she
a+erred that her husband died o$ electrocution while in the per$orance o$ his wor-"Fortune
nsurance alle.ed that since both the death certifcate issued by the raHiMinistry o$ ealth and
the autopsy report o$ the > $ailed to disclose the cause o$ abrielsdeath, it denied liability
under the policy" n addition, pri+ate respondent raised the de$enseo$ prescription, in+o-in.
5ection (/4 o$ the nsurance Code"

556: 7= &acHueline &ieneI +da" de abriels clai a.ainst Fortune nsurance should
bedenied on the .round o$ prescription

6!;:

 <es" 5ection (/4 o$ the nsurance Code pro+ides: 5ec" (/4" Any person ha+in. any clai upon
the policy issued pursuant to this chapter shall, without any unnecessary delay, present to the
insurance copany concerned a written notice o$ clai settin. $orth the nature, extent and
duration o$ the inDuries sustained as certifed by a duly licensed physician" otice o$ clai ust
be fled within six onths $ro date o$ the accident, otherwise, the clai shall be deeed
wai+ed" Action or suit $or reco+ery o$ daa.e due to loss or inDury ust be brou.ht, in proper
cases, with the Coissioner or the Courts within one year $ro denial o$ the clai, otherwise,
the claiants ri.ht o$ action shall prescribe" he notice o$ death was .i+en to Fortune nsurance,
concededly, ore than a year a$ter the death o$ +da" de abriels husband" Fortune nsurance, in
in+o-in. prescription, was not re$errin. to the one#year period $ro the denial o$ the clai within
which to fle an action a.ainst an insurer but ob+iously to the written notice o$ clai that had to
be subitted within six onths $ro the tie o$ the accident"

@da" de abriel ar.ues that Fortune nsurance ust be deeed to ha+e wai+ed its ri.ht to show
that the cause o$ death is an excepted peril, by $ailin. to ha+e its answers duly +erifed" t is true
that a atter o$ which a written reHuest $or adission is ade shall be deeed ipliedly
aditted unless, within a period desi.nated in the reHuest, which shall not be less than 1) days
a$ter ser+ice thereo$, or within such $urther tie as the court ay allow on otion and notice,
the party to who the reHuest is directed ser+es upon the party reHuestin. the adission a
sworn stateent either denyin. specifcally the atters o$ which an adission is reHuested or
settin. $orth in detail the reasons why he cannot truth$ully either adit or deny those atters3
howe+er, the +erifcation, li-e in ost cases reHuired by the rules o$ procedure, is a $oral, not
 Durisdictional, reHuireent, and ainly intended to secure an assurance that atters which are
alle.ed are done in .ood $aith or are true and correct and not o$ ere speculation"

7hen circustances warrant, the court ay siply order the correction o$ un+erifed pleadin.s
or act on it and wai+e strict copliance with the rules in order that the ends o$ Dustice ay
thereby be ser+ed" n the case o$ answers to written reHuests $or adission particularly, the
court can allow the party a-in. the adission, whether ade expressly or deeed to ha+e
been ade ipliedly, to withdraw or aend it upon such ters as ay be Dust" he insurance
policy expressly pro+ided that to be copensable, the inDury or death should be caused by
+iolent accidental external and +isible eans" n atteptin. to pro+e the cause o$ her husbands
death, all that +da" de abriel could subit were a letter sent to her by her husbands co#wor-er,
statin. that abriel died when he tried to haul water out o$ a tan- while its suber.ed otor

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 3/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

was still $unctionin., and +da" de abriels sworn aGda+it" he said aGda+it, howe+er, suers
$ro procedural infrity as it was not e+en testifed to or identifed by +da" de abriel hersel$"
 his aGda+it there$ore is a ere hearsay under the law"

n li-e anner, the letter alle.edly written by the deceaseds co#wor-er which was ne+er
identifed to in court by the supposed author, suers $ro the sae de$ect as the aGda+it o$ 
+da" de abriel" ot one o$ the other docuents subitted, to wit, the P=6A decision, the death
certifcate issued by the Ministry o$ ealth o$ raH and the > autopsy report, could .i+e any
probati+e +alue to +da" de abriels clai" he P=6A decision did not a-e any cate.orical
holdin. on the specifc cause o$ abriels death" n suary, e+idence is utterly wantin. to
establish that the insured suered $ro an accidental death, the ris- co+ered by the policy"

0" F nsurance Corporation +" CA %2))*'

!essons Applicable: !oss caused by ne.li.ence o$ the insured %nsurance'

FAC5:

• Anco 6nterprises Copany %AC=', a partnership between An. ui and Co o, was
en.a.ed in the shippin. business operatin. two coon carriers

o M8 AC= tu.boat

o ;8> !ucio bar.e # no en.ine o$ its own, it could not aneu+er by itsel$ and had to be
towed by a tu.boat $or it to o+e $ro one place to another"

• 5epteber 2( 19J9: 5an Mi.uel Corporation %5MC' shipped $ro Mandaue City, Cebu, on
board the ;8> !ucio, $or towa.e by M8 AC=:

o 2*,))) cases Pale Pilsen and (*) cases Cer+eIa e.ra # consi.nee 5MCs >eer
Mar-etin. ;i+ision %>M;'#6stancia >eer 5ales =Gce, 6stancia, loilo

o 1*,))) cases Pale Pilsen and 2)) cases Cer+eIa e.ra # consi.nee 5MCs >M;#5an
 &ose >eer 5ales =Gce, 5an &ose, AntiHue

• 5epteber (), 19J9: ;8> !ucio was towed by the M8 AC= arri+ed and M8 AC= le$t the
bar.e iediately

o  he clouds were dar- and the wa+es were bi. so 5MCs ;istrict 5ales 5uper+isor,
Fernando Macabua., reHuested AC=s representati+e to trans$er the bar.e to a
sa$er place but it re$used so around the idni.ht, the bar.e sun- alon.
with 29,21) cases o$ Pale Pilsen and *)) cases o$ Cer+eIa e.ra totallin.
to P1,(40,19J

• 7hen 5MC claied a.ainst AC= it stated that they a.reed that it would not be liable $or
any losses or daa.es resultin. to the car.oes by reason o$ $ortuitous e+ent and it was
a.reed to be insured with F $or 2),))) cases or P/*/,*))

• AC= fled a.ainst F

o F alle.ed that AC= and 5MC $ailed to exercise ordinary dili.ence or the
dili.ence o$ a .ood $ather o$ the $aily in the care and super+ision o$ the car.oes

• C: AC= liable to 5MC and F liable $or *(K o$ the lost car.oes

• CA aGred

556: 78 F should be exepted $ro liability to AC= $or the lost car.oes because o$ a
$ortuitous e+ent and ne.li.ence o$ AC=

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 4/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

6!;: <65" AGred with odifcation" hird#party coplainant is disissed"

• Art" 1J((" Coon carriers, $ro the nature o$ their business and $or reasons o$ public
policy are bound to obser+e extraordinary dili.ence in the +i.ilance o+er the .oods and $or
the sa$ety o$ the passen.ers transported by the, accordin. to all the circustances o$ 
each case"

5uch extraordinary dili.ence in +i.ilance o+er the .oods is $urther expressed in Articles 1J(4,
1J(*, and 1J4* os" *, 0, and J " " "
• Art" 1J(4" Coon carriers are responsible $or the loss, destruction, or deterioration o$ 
the .oods, unless the sae is due to any o$ the $ollowin. causes only:

%1' Flood, stor, earthHua-e, li.htnin., or other natural disaster or calaity3

" " "

• Art" 1J(9" n order that the coon carrier ay be exepted $ro responsibility, the
natural disaster ust ha+e been the proxiate and only cause o$ the loss" owe+er, the
coon carrier ust exercise due dili.ence to pre+ent or iniiIe loss be$ore, durin.
and a$ter the occurrence o$ Lood, stor, or other natural disaster in order that the
coon carrier ay be exepted $ro liability $or the loss, destruction, or deterioration
o$ the .oods " " "

• Caso $ortuito or $orce aDeure

o extraordinary e+ents not $oreseeable or a+oidable, e+ents that could not be

$oreseen, or which thou.h $oreseen, were ine+itable

o not enou.h that the e+ent should not ha+e been $oreseen or anticipated, as is
coonly belie+ed but it ust be one ipossible to $oresee or to a+oid # not in this
case
 other +essels in the port o$ 5an &ose, AntiHue, ana.ed to trans$er to another
place

•  o be exepted $ro responsibility, the natural disaster should ha+e been the proxiate
and only cause o$ the loss" here ust ha+e been no contributory ne.li.ence on the part
o$ the coon carrier"

o there was blatant ne.li.ence on the part o$ M8 AC=s crewebers, frst in
lea+in. the en.ine#less bar.e ;8> !ucio at the ercy o$ the stor without the

assistance o$ the tu.boat, and a.ain in $ailin. to heed the reHuest o$ 5MCs
representati+es to ha+e the bar.e trans$erred to a sa$er place

• 7hen e+idence show that the insureds ne.li.ence or rec-lessness is so .ross as to be

suGcient to constitute a will$ul act, the insurer ust be exonerated"

• AC=s eployees is o$ such .ross character that it aounts to a wron.$ul act which ust
exonerate F $ro liability under the insurance contract

o both the ;8> !ucio and the M8 AC= were blatantly ne.li.ent

. 'un v CA !.". #o. 92%+% uly 1, 1992

Facts:

!i accidentally -illed hisel$ with his .un a$ter reo+in. the a.aIine, showin. o, pointin.
the .un at his secretary, and pointin. the .un at his teple" he widow, the benefciary, sued
the petitioner and won 2)),))) as indenity with additional aounts $or other daa.es and
attorneys $ees" his was sustained in the Court o$ Appeals then sent to the 5upree court by the
insurance copany"

ssue:

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 5/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

1" 7as !is widow eli.ible to recei+e the benefts

2" 7ere the other daa.es +alid

eld:

1" <es 2" o

atio: 1" here was an accident"

;e la CruI +" Capital nsurance says that Ethere is no accident when a deliberate act is per$ored
unless soe additional, unexpected, independent and un$oreseen happenin. occurs which
produces or brin.s about their inDury or death"E his was true when he fred the .un"

nder the insurance contract, the copany wasnt liable $or bodily inDury caused by attepted
suicide or by one needlessly exposin. hisel$ to dan.er except to sa+e anothers li$e"

!i wasnt thou.ht to needlessly expose hisel$ to dan.er due to the witness testiony that he
too- steps to ensure that the .un wasnt loaded" e e+en assured his secretary that the .un was
loaded"

 here is nothin. in the policy that relie+es the insurer o$ the responsibility to pay the indenity
a.reed upon i$ the insured is shown to ha+e contributed to his own accident"

2" Nn order that a person ay be ade liable to the payent o$ oral daa.es, the law
reHuires that his act be wron.$ul" he ad+erse result o$ an action does not per se a-e the act
wron.$ul and subDect the act or to the payent o$ oral daa.es" he law could not ha+e eant
to ipose a penalty on the ri.ht to liti.ate3 such ri.ht is so precious that oral daa.es ay not
be char.ed on those who ay exercise it erroneously" For these the law taxes costs"O

$ a party wins, he cannot, as a rule, reco+er attorneys $ees and liti.ation expenses, since it is
not the $act o$ winnin. alone that entitles hi to reco+er such daa.es o$ the exceptional
circustances enuerated in Art" 22)/" =therwise, e+ery tie a de$endant wins, autoatically
the plainti ust pay attorneys $ees thereby puttin. a preiu on the ri.ht to liti.ate which
should not be so" For those expenses, the law dees the award o$ costs as suGcient"O

/" "" o" !#(*/4/ o+eber 22, 19(2

 6 6A5 F6 C",

plainti#appellant,+s"

 6 !=>6 B 65 F6 5AC6 C=" =F 67 <=?,

de$endant#appellee"

############################################"" o" !#(*/49 o+eber 22, 19(26 6A5 F6 C",

plainti#appellant,+s"

C=MM6CA! = A55AC6 C=MPA<, !;",

de$endant#appellee"

############################################"" o" !#(*/*) o+eber 22, 19(26 6A5 F6 C",

plainti#appellant,+s"

 6 C=6A! 5AC6 C=" =F 67 <=?,

de$endant#appellee"

Facts:

Plainti is a duly re.istered partnership en.a.ed in the sale o$ $urniture3 that the de$endant is
acopany en.a.ed in the insurance business" Plainti insured a.ainst fre the articles existin.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 6/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

inits establishent" =n March 2, 1929, a fre bro-e out in plaintis establishent, as a result o$ 
which the insured articles therein $ound were destroyed by the fre";e$endants de$enses are:%1'
that the fre in Huestion was o$ intentional ori.in3 %2' that the claiso$ loss presented by the
plainti were $alse and $raudulent3 %(' that the $urniture in Huestion had been ort.a.ed by the
plainti to the Manila Finance and ;iscount Corporation, so that at thetie o$ the fre the plainti 
was not the only party interested therein, contrary to therepresentations ade in its clais o$ 
loss3 and %4' that the plainti +iolated one o$ the conditionso$ the policies by re$usin. to $urnish
the de$endants with a physical in+entory o$ the contents o$ its store at the tie o$ the fre"

>y a.reeent o$ the parties the three cases were tried Dointly who a$ter the trial $ound that
theclais presented by the plainti were notoriously $raudulent, and, accordin.ly,
sustainedde$endants second special de$ense and disissed the coplaint in each o$ the three
cases"ence, this petition"

ssue:78 fre was o$ intentional ori.in78 the clai o$ loss were $raudulent

ulin.:

Fire o$ ntentional =ri.in

7e are thus led to the conclusion that de$endants frst special de$ense is well $ounded Q that
thefre in Huestion was o$ intentional ori.in and was caused with the conni+ance o$ the plainti"
either the interest o$ the Dustice nor public policy would be prooted by an oission o$ the
courts to expose and conden incendiaris once the sae is established by copetent
e+idence"t would tend to encoura.e rather than suppress that .reat public enace i$ the courts
do notexpose the crie to public condenation when the e+idence in a case li-e the present
shows thatit has really been coitted"

Fraudulent clai o$ loss" 7e ay also consider the daa.e caused by the fre in relation with
de$endants second specialde$ense that plaintis clais o$ loss were $alse and $raudulent"o

each o$ the proo$s o$ loss which the plainti presented to the respecti+e insurance copanies
$our days a$ter the fre was attached an in+entory o$ the $urniture claied to ha+e been in the
buildin. at the tie o$ the fre" his in+entory contains *)0 pieces o$ $urniture and(,J)) board
$eet o$ luber o$ the alle.ed total +alue o$ P*2,)01"99" his aount was the totalloss claied to
ha+e been suered by the plainti, althou.h we note that in its coplaints inthese cases
aended it is conceded that soe $urniture o$ the +alue o$ about P*,))) was sa+ed"

e.ardless o$ any dierence o$ opinion as to the +alue o$ the insured $urniture and the extent o$ 
the daa.e caused thereto by the fre in Huestion, the $act that the insured only
hadapproxiately 2)2 pieces o$ $urniture in the buildin. at the tie o$ the fre and sou.ht
tocopel the insurance copanies to pay $or *)0 pieces conclusi+ely shows that its clai was
nothonestly concei+ed" he trial courts conclusion that said clai is notoriously $raudulent, is
correct" Condition 12 o$ each o$ the insurance policies sued upon pro+ides that Ei$ the clai be
inany respect $raudulent, or i$ any $alse declaration be ade or used in support thereo$, or i$ 
any$raudulent eans or de+ices are used by the nsured or anyone actin. on his behal$ to obtain
any beneft under this policy3 or, i$ the loss or daa.e be occasioned by the wil$ul act, or with
theconni+ance o$ the nsured, Q all beneft under this policy shall be $or$eited"E

9" !.". #o. $-19+31 une 29, 1963

 45 A# C/5A#,  plainti#appellant,

+s"
I7$8M7#' I#'5"A#C7 C:., I#C., 7; A$.,  de$endants#appellants"

Facts:

Plainti <u >an Chuan be.an his business enterprise under the nae o$ ECMC radin."E he
plainti insured a.ainst fre the stoc- erchandise contained therein with de$endant Fieldens
nsurance Co" an E openE policy liitin. the insurers liability to the aount o$ P2)),))) $or a
period o$ one %1' year3 that plainti a.ain insured a.ainst fre the sae stoc- o$ erchandise
co+ered by Fieldens policy with de$endant Paraount 5urety B nsurance Co" an EopenE policy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 7/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

liitin. liability thereunder to P14),))) $or a one#year period3 herea$ter, Fieldens a.reed to
trans$er the co+era.e o$ its insurance policy to plaintis dierent store where he trans$erred3
Paraount also a.reed to ha+e the co+era.e o$ its insurance policy trans$erred to the sae new
preises and ac-nowled.ed the existence o$ its co#insurance with Fieldens3 Fieldens also
ac-nowled.ed its co#insurance with Paraount3 while both insurance policies were in $ull $orce
and eect, plaintis business establishent, was totally destroyed by fre"

 he next day a$ter the occurrence o$ the fre, plainti +erbally notifed the respecti+e a.ents o$ 
the de$endants#insurers o$ such incident3 and on the sae day, plainti and " " >ayne
AdDustent Co" and Manila AdDustent Co", adDusters o$ de$endants Fieldens and Paraount,
respecti+ely, executed Enon#wai+erE a.reeents $or the purpose o$ deterinin. the
circustances o$ the fre and the +alue or aount o$ loss and daa.e to the erchandise
insured under said policies" Pursuant to such a.reeents, " " >ayne AdDustent Co" sent a
letter to plainti, and Manila AdDustent Co" sent its letter, reHuirin. the plainti to subit
certain papers and docuents" Plainti .a+e a written notice o$ the occurrence o$ the fre to the
de$endants, and, in answer to the letters o$ the adDusters, plainti subitted his separate $oral
fre clais, to.ether with soe o$ the supportin. papers reHuired therein" >ecause o$ plaintis
non#copliance or $ailure to subit the reHuired docuents and the adDusters deand in
subseHuent letters that the insured subit additional papers, the adDusters and plainti en.a.ed
in an exchan.e o$ counications, until fnally the de$endants reDected plaintis clais, and
denied liability under their respecti+e policies, e+idently upon their respecti+e adDusters
recoendations"

ssue: 78 the insurer is liable"

eld:

=" he plainti adheres to the in+entory as the iaculate basis $or the actual worth o$ stoc-s
that were burned, on the .round that it was ade $ro actual count, and in copliance with law"
>ut this in+entory is not bindin. on the de$endants, since it was prepared without their
inter+ention" t is well to note that plainti had e+ery reason to show that the +alue o$ his stoc-
o$ .oods exceeded the aount o$ insurance that he carried" And the in+entory, ha+in. been
ade prior to the fre, was no proo$ o$ the existence o$ these .oods at the store when the fre
occurred" rue, there were erchandise that were actually destroyed by fre" >ut when $raud is
concei+ed, what is true is subtly hidden by the scheer beneath proper and le.al appearances,
includin. the preparation o$ the in+entory"

 he flin. o$ collection suits $or unpaid purchases a.ainst <u >an Chuan, howe+er +alid these ay
be, do not le.itiiIe his $raudulent clai a.ainst the insurers in the present case, nor show that
the .oods alle.edly deli+ered were at the store when the fre occurred" t is ar-worthy that in
soe instances the debts are only attested by certifcations $ro the creditors"

 he plainti, <u >an Chuan, is a Chinese who cae to this country in 194/" is cobined incoe
$ro 19*0 throu.h 19*/ aounted to only P1),)))" <et in 19*9 he appeared as runnin. a,
business o$ his own worth alost hal$ a illion pesos" he source o$ the in+estent, accordin.ly
to hi, were unsecured loans in the $antastic su o$ P224,)))"))" Fro these circustances,
and the $acts herein be$ore stated, it is plain that no credence can be .i+en to plaintis clais"

1)" Yu Cua v. South British Insurance Co.

11" !.". #o. $-22&9+ 8ecem*er 16, 192&

A.M. ;5A':#,  plainti#appellant,

+s"
#:";/ C/I#A I#'5"A#C7 C:MPA#4, $;8.

Facts:

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 8/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

About idni.ht o$ the 2/th o$ &anuary, 1922, a fre bro-e out in the @anity Fair, a erchantile
establishent owned by A"M" uason, de+oted to the sale o$ dry .oods and ebroidery and to
conductin. a assa.e and anicurin. parlor and tea roo" ;ue to the proptness and
eGciency o$ the Manila fre departent, the f+e was placed under control be$ore it had done
ore than destroy a part o$ the buildin. with its eHuipent and erchandise" he presence o$ 
dry .oods saturated with spirits o$ turpentine and other +ery suspicious circustances, resulted
in &" !orenIo, deputy chie$ o$ the fre departent, reportin. that the cause o$ the fre was
Encendiary """ international"E

At that tie, the @anity Fair was insured with the !i+erpool B !ondon B lobe nsurance
Copany, !td", and the orth China nsurance Copany, !td", under se+en policies, totalin.
P2)),)))" Fi+e o$ these policies had been ta-en out by Mr" uason on ;eceber 14, 1921, and
two had been ta-en out on &anuary 10, 1922"

Mr" uason laid clai to P191,((0"J4" 7hen said clai was reDected by the insurance copanies"
 he principal de$enses set up by the de$endants were, frst, that all beneft under the policies had
been $or$eited because $alse, $raudulent, and fctitious declarations had been ade the de+ices
to obtain payent3 and, second, that the f+e was caused by the will$ul act o$ the plainti and
those insti.ated by an in conni+ance with hi"

ssue: 78 the insurers are liable"

eld:

o" he dierence between the $oral clai o$ approxiately P19),))), or, deductin. the
aount as-ed $or the $urniture, o$ o+er P1J),))), and P(),))), the top f.ure conceded by
ipartial witnesses, is so .reat as to indicate $alse stateents ade intentionally and will$ully"
5uch $acts brin. into +iew the twel$th condition o$ the policies pro+idin.: E$ the clai be in any
respect $raudulent, or i$ any $alse declaration be ade or used in support thereo$, or i$ any
$raudulent eans or de+ices are used by the insured or anyone actin. on his behal$ to obtain any
beneft under this policy3 or i$ the loss or daa.e be occasioned by the will$ul act, or with the
conni+ance o$ the insured """ all beneft under this policy shall be $or$eited"E his clause, with its
un$ortunate relation to the pro+en $acts, calls $or the application o$ the doctrine that $alse and
aterial stateents ade with an intent to decei+e or de$raud, a+oid the insurance policies"

12" !.". #o. $-13331. #ovem*er 29, 196<.

8A=I8 C:#'5#I an0 "787'=I#8A A. C:#'5#I, laini>s an0 aellees, v. ;/7

MA#I$A P:"; '7"=IC7

Facts:

;a+id ConsunDi and Fredes+inda A" ConsunDi were consi.nees o$ 24J cartons o$ edical supplies
unloaded at the Port o$ Manila $ro the nited 5tates" As arrastre operator, the Manila Port
5er+ice too- char.e o$ the erchandise, and in due course deli+ered to plaintis or their a.ent
24( cartons, thereby incurrin. a shorta.e o$ $our %4' cartons"

7here$ore this coplaint in the Manila unicipal court $or the su o$ P40)"(/ representin. the
in+oice +alue o$ the undeli+ered .oods, plus daa.es and attorneys $ees totallin. P02)"(0"

 he de$ense rested ainly on the $ailure o$ plaintis to fle a clai $or the shorta.e within 1*
days, as pro+ided in its Mana.eent Contract with the >ureau o$ Custos, which reads
partly:D.c:chanrobles"co"ph

E" " " n any e+ent the contractor shall be relie+ed and released o$ any and all responsibility or
liability $or loss, daa.e, isdeli+ery and or non#deli+er o$ .oods, unless suit in the Court o$ 
proper Durisdiction is brou.ht within a period o$ one %1' year $ro the date o$ the dischar.e o$ the
.oods, or $ro the date when the clai $or the +alue o$ such .oods ha+e been reDected or denied

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 9/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

by the contractor, pro+ided that such clai shall ha+e been fled with the Contractor within 1*
%f$teen' days $ro the date o$ the dischar.e o$ the last pac-a.e $ro the carryin. +essel"E

ssue: 78 the ConsunDi can clai"

eld:

=" Carriers or depositories soeties reHuire presentation o$ clais within a short tie a$ter
deli+ery as a condition precedent to their liability $or losses" 5uch reHuireent is not epty
$oralis" t has a defnite purpose, i"e" to aord the carrier or depository a reasonable
opportunity and $acilities to chec- the +alidity o$ the clais while the $acts are still $resh in the
inds o$ the persons who too- part in the transaction and the docuents are still a+ailable" ow,
we see no reason why Manila Port 5er+ice Q $or whose beneft the pro+ision was e+idently
inserted Q should reHuire propt presentation o$ clai in one instance, while wai+in. it in the
other"

n this connection, realiIe the seein. ineHuity o$ applyin. this 1*#day pro+iso where the
consi.nee coes to -now the daa.e or loss only a$ter the lapse o$ such 1*#day period, $or
instance, where deli+ery by the contractor ta-es place 10 days a$ter dischar.e o$ the last
pac-a.e $ro the +essel" And it i.ht be un$air to apply the liitation where the claiant coes
to -now o$ such condition precedent only a$ter the 1*#day period" >ut such exceptional
considerations do not coe presently into play, plaintis ha+in. asserted none o$ the" =n the
contrary, ipliedly adittin. -nowled.e o$ both the condition and the shorta.e within the 1*#
day tie , they stood on the proposition, as stated, that ha+in. instituted suit within one year
a$ter the dischar.e o$ the .oods $ro the carryin. +essel, they had properly fled their action,
notwithstandin. no clai had been ade within 1* days" 7here$ore, as their position turns out
to be le.ally untenable, the Dud.ent ust be, and is hereby re+ersed, and the de$endants are
absol+ed $ro all liability"

1(" >achrach +" >ritish Aerican Assurance Co" %191)'

"" o" !#*J1*  ;eceber 2), 191)

!essons Applicable: 6ect o$ Chan.e o$ nterest in hin. nsured %nsurance'

!aws Applicable:

FAC5:

•
6" M" >achrach insured .oods belon.in. to a .eneral $urniture store, such as iron and
brass bedsteads, toilet tables, chairs, ice boxes, bureaus, washstands, irrors, and sea#
.rass $urniture stored in the .round Loor and frst story o$ house and dwellin. with
an authoriIed a.ent o$ the >ritish Aerican Assurance Copany

• >ritish Aerican Assurance Copany denied alle.in. that:

o property co+ered by the policy to " 7" Peabody B Co" to secure certain
indebtedness due and owin. to said copany

o interest in certain o$ the .oods co+ered by the said policy is trasn$erred to Mac-e to

secure certain obli.ations assued by Mac-e and on behal$ o$ >achrach

o will$ully placed a .asoline can containin. 1) .allons o$ .asoline close to the insured
.oods

o ade no proo$ o$ the loss with the tie reHuired by the condition

• C: >ritish Aerican Assurance Copany liable to bACAC

556: 78 >achrach can clai

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 10/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

6!;: <65" lower court aGred

• -eepin. o$ inLaable oils on the preises, thou.h prohibited by the policy, does not
+oid it i$ such -eepin. is incidental to the business

• t ay be added that there was no pro+ision in the policy prohibitin. the -eepin. o$ paints
and +arnishes upon the preises where the insured property was stored" $ the copany
intended to rely upon a condition o$ that character, it ou.ht to ha+e been plainly
expressed in the policy"
• alienation clause # $or$eiture i$ the interest in the property pass $ro the insured

• there is no alienation within the eanin. o$ the insurance law until the ort.a.e acHuires
a ri.ht to ta-e possession by de$ault under the ters o$ the ort.a.e" o such ri.ht is
claied to ha+e accrued in the case at bar, and the alienation clause is there$ore
inapplicable"

• we can not fnd that there is a preponderance o$ e+idence showin. that the plainti did
actually set fre or cause fre to be set to the .oods in Huestion

• t does not positi+ely appear o$ record that the autoobile in Huestion was not included in
the other policies" t does appear that the autoobile was sa+ed and was considered as a
part o$ the sal+a.ed" t is alle.ed that the sal+a.e aounted to P4,))), includin. the
autoobile" his aount %P4,)))' was distributed aon. the dierent insurers and the
aount o$ their responsibility was proportionately reduced" he de$endant and appellant
in the present case ade no obDection at any tie in the lower court to that distribution o$ 
the sal+a.e" he clai is now ade $or the frst tie"

14" !.". #o. $-66396 Au?us 2+, 19+&

;/7 #7@ 7A$A#8 I#'5"A#C7 C:MPA#4, I#C., petitioner,

+s"
;/7 /:#:"A$7 I#;7"M78IA;7 APP7$$A;7 C:5";

Facts:

A car.o o$ oats was consi.ned to Muller and Phipps %Manila' !td" he car.o was insured a.ainst
all ris-s by he ew Realand nsurance Co", !td", the petitioner herein" 7hen the car.o was
dischar.ed se+eral cartons which contained the oats were in bad order" he consi.nee fled a
clai a.ainst the insurer $or the +alue o$ the daa.ed .oods which the latter paid in the aount
o$ P1/,14/"09" he insurer as subro.ee o$ the consi.nee sued 6" aIon, nc", the respondent
herein, who was the arrastre operator" he insurer deanded reiburseent in the aount o$ 
P1J,)2*"/J" he lower f.ure is due to the $act that the carrier responded $or its share o$ the loss
in the su o$ P1,121")2" he Court o$ First nstance o$ Manila .a+e Dud.ent in $a+or o$ the
plainti" t ordered Ethe de$endant to pay to the plainti P1J,)2*"/J with 0K interest $ro April
2(, 19J(, until sae is paid, P1,)))")) as attoeys $ees, and the costs"E

6" aIon, nc" appealed the ad+erse decision to the Court o$ Appeals" he nterediate Appellate
Court which succeeded the Court o$ Appeals re+ersed the decision o$ the trial court E=n the
.round o$ prescription, appellee has no cause o$ action a.ainst the appellant"E

ssue: 78 the plainti has a clai"

eld:

 <es" he trial court has o+erloo-ed the si.nifcance o$ the reHuest $or, and the result o$, the bad
order exaination, which were fled and done within f$teen days $ro the haula.e o$ the .oods
$ro the +essel" 5aid reHuest and result, in eect, ser+ed the purpose o$ a clai, which is Q

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 11/12
7/17/2019 Insurance Loss Digest

Eto aord the carrier or depositary reasonable opportunity and $acilities to chec- the
+alidity or clais while $acts are still $resh in the inds o$ the person who too- part
in the transaction and the docuents are still a+ailable"E %ConsunDi +s" Manila Port
5er+ice, !#1***1, 29 o+" 190)'

ndeed, the exaination underta-en by the de$endants own inspector not only .a+e the
de$endant an opportunity to chec- the .oods but is itsel$ a +erifcation o$ its own liability %C$"
Parsons ardware +s" Manila ailroad Co", !#1*1J(, May (), 1901'"

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/insurance-loss-digest 12/12