G.R. No. L-25845 December 17, 1926
Lessons Applicable: Loss, the immediate cause of which was the peril insured against, if the proximate cause thereof was NOT excepted in the contract (Insurance)
Facts:
- May 22, 1924: A fire insurance policy was issued by Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited to Messrs. Paris-Manila Perfumery Co. (Peter Johnson, Prop.) for P13,000
- also insured with other insurance companies for P1,200 and P5,000 respectively
- July 4, 1924: The Perfumery was burned unknown of the cause totalling a loss of P38.025.56
- Phoenix refused to pay nor to appoint an arbitrator stating that the policy did not cover any loss or damage occasioned by explosion and stating that the claim was fraudulent
- RTC: ordered Phoenix to pay P13,000
- Phoenix appealed
- The insurance policy contains:
Unless otherwise expressly stated in the policy the insurance does not cover
(h) Loss or damage occasioned by the explosion; but loss or damage by explosion of gas for illuminating or domestic purposes in a building in which gas is not generated and which does not form a part of any gas works, will be deemed to be loss by fire within the meaning of this policy.
ISSUE: W/N Phoenix should be liable for the loss because there was no explosion which is an exemption from the policy
HELD: YES.
- If it be a fact that the fire resulted from an explosion that fact, if proven, would be a complete defense, the burden of the proof of that fact is upon the defendant, and upon that point, there is a failure of proof
- lower court found as a fact that there was no fraud in the insurance, and that the value of the property destroyed by the fire was more than the amount of the insurance.
