G.R. No. L-5715 December 20, 1910
Lessons Applicable: Effect of Change of Interest in Thing Insured (Insurance)
Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
- E. M. Bachrach insured goods belonging to a general furniture store, such as iron and brass bedsteads, toilet tables, chairs, ice boxes, bureaus, washstands, mirrors, and sea-grass furniture stored in the ground floor and first story of house and dwelling with an authorized agent of the British American Assurance Company
- British American Assurance Company denied alleging that:
- property covered by the policy to H. W. Peabody & Co. to secure certain indebtedness due and owing to said company
- interest in certain of the goods covered by the said policy is trasnferred to Macke to secure certain obligations assumed by Macke and on behalf of Bachrach
- willfully placed a gasoline can containing 10 gallons of gasoline close to the insured goods
- made no proof of the loss with the time required by the condition
- RTC: British American Assurance Company liable to bACHRACH
ISSUE: W/N Bachrach can claim
HELD: YES. lower court affirmed
- keeping of inflammable oils on the premises, though prohibited by the policy, does not void it if such keeping is incidental to the business
- It may be added that there was no provision in the policy prohibiting the keeping of paints and varnishes upon the premises where the insured property was stored. If the company intended to rely upon a condition of that character, it ought to have been plainly expressed in the policy.
- alienation clause - forfeiture if the interest in the property pass from the insured
- there is no alienation within the meaning of the insurance law until the mortgage acquires a right to take possession by default under the terms of the mortgage. No such right is claimed to have accrued in the case at bar, and the alienation clause is therefore inapplicable.
- we can not find that there is a preponderance of evidence showing that the plaintiff did actually set fire or cause fire to be set to the goods in question
- It does not positively appear of record that the automobile in question was not included in the other policies. It does appear that the automobile was saved and was considered as a part of the salvaged. It is alleged that the salvage amounted to P4,000, including the automobile. This amount (P4,000) was distributed among the different insurers and the amount of their responsibility was proportionately reduced. The defendant and appellant in the present case made no objection at any time in the lower court to that distribution of the salvage. The claim is now made for the first time.
