Extracción de la componente fundamental y de cuadratura

(b) An inchoate interest founded on an existing interest; or

(c) An expectancy, coupled with an existing interest in that out of which the expectancy arises. What is existing interest?

Existing interest in property is the legal or equitable title on the property. What is an inchoate interest?

It is an interest which has not yet ripened, such as the interest of a stockholder in the property of the corporation which he owns stocks.

In what kind of expectancy may insurable interest consist?

The expectancy MUST be coupled with an existing interest in that, out of which such expectancy arises. Examples would be: a farmer insuring future crops that he will grow on his land, or a workman insuring the building which he was contracted to repair.

Cases:

(31) Suter v. Union Surety 51 OG 1905

Facts:



Suter, the managing partner of Morcoin Co., insured two juke boxes with Union Surety for P4,000. (btw, siya din yung sa Tax 2 diba? Yung pinakasalan yung partner niyang si Spirig?)

 Subsequently, the two juke boxes were destroyed by fire.

 Suter now claims from Union Surety, the latter denying the claims on the grounds that:

o

The properties were allegedly overvalued, it having been proven that the juke boxes cost only P774.00

o Suter had no insurable interest since the properties insured belong to Morcoin Co. Issues and Resolutions:

(1) Whether or not the juke boxes were overvalued.

No. While acquisition cost is only P774.00, this does not include taxes, freight insurance, shipping cost, and other improvements made thereon. The value of the property is determine at the time it was insured and not the time it was acquired.

(2) WON Suter had insurable interest.

YES, Suter had insurable interest. The test for insurable interest in property is whether or not the insured will benefit in the property’s reservation or continued existence, or suffer a direct pecuniary loss in its destruction. Suter, being the managing partner will clearly benefit in the juke boxes’ preservation and would also be affected by its destruction.

(32) Traders Insurance and Surety Co. v. Golangco 95 PHIL 826

Facts:

 A decision was rendred in Civil Case No. 6306 granting Golangco the right to collect rentals from a building in Sta. Cruz, Manila.



Golangco then sought fire insurance from Traders. Before the policy was issued, Golangco made a full and clear exposal of his interests in the premises, i.e. that he was not the owner.

 The fire policy that defendant issued covered only all of Golangco’s interest in the premises and his right to collect the rentals.



The building burned down in a fire and Golangco sought to collect from Traders. Traders denied any liability on the ground that since Golangco was not the owner of the premises then he had no insurable interest in the same and consequently, he could not collect the insurance proceeds.

Issue: WON plaintiff can claim the insurance proceeds. Held. YES.

Both at the time of the issuance of the policy and at the time of the fire, plaintiff Golangco was in legal possession of the premises, collecting rentals from its occupant. It seems plain that if the premises were destroyed as they were, by fire, Golangco would be, as he was, directly damnified thereby; and hence he had an insurable interest therein.

(33) Zenith Insurance Corporation v. The Insurance Commission 87 OG 6249

Facts:



Zenith entered into an insurance contract, denominated as Equipment Floater Policy covering a Kato Bachoe including its accessories and appurtenances thereof, from loss of damage. Complainant paid the stipulated premiums therefore.

 Within the period of effectivity of the policy, the two pieces of hydraulic wheel gear pumps, which are considered appurtenances and/or parts attached to and/or installed in the Kato BAchoe were lost, stolen and/or illegally detached by unknown thieves or malefactors



Despite repeated assurances by Zenith’s soliciting agent, it refused and failed to settle and pay complainant’s insurance claim.



Complainant seeks not only the payment of said insurance claim of 70T plus legal interest, atty’s fees, and litigation expenses, but also the revocation or cancellation of the license of Zenith to do insurance business.



Zenith on the other hand contends that:

o Complainant is not the real party in interest since the policy carries with it a designated loss payee, the BA Finance Corp

o The policy insures against loss or damage caused by fire and lightning, etc, while theft or robbery is NOT insured against in the policy, it not having been expressly mentioned

o Loss nevertheless is excluded under the exception of “infidelity exclusion” by the operator who left it unguarded, unattended and deserted while entrusted to him, and for failure to give timely notice of loss

o Complainant and/or BA Finance is guilty of concealment and misrepresentation at the time they secured the policy, because at the time it became operative, the complainant was NOT yet the owner of the property insured, the property still hot having been delivered to him, and BA finance had no insurable interest yet, henceforth, the contract of insurance was VOID AB INITIO for lack of insurable interest at the time the insurance took effect.

Issues and Resolutions:

(1) WON the loss through theft or robbery claimed is within the coverage of the policy.

The Insurance Commissioner, as reiterated by the SC, found for the complainant in this wise: While the policy enumerated the risks covered, it does NOT, however, in its express terms, limit compensability to that stated in the enumeration. The enumerated risks excluded did not include theft or robbery committed or perpetrated by an unidentified culprit, hence the complainant’s claim for damages is compensable.

The foregoing policy is supported by the long time honored doctrine of “contra proferentem: which provides that: “any ambiguity in the policy shall be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer”. This is true because insurance contracts are essentially contracts of adhesion and applicants for insurance have no choice but to accept the terms and conditions in the policy even if they are not in full accord therewith.

(2) WON the complainant was with insurable interest therein when the said policy contract was procured. The complainant has insurable interest in the insured property at the time of the procurement of the insurance policy. As the CC provides, “the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price,” and Sec. 15 of the IC allows the insurance of a mere contingent or expectant interest in anything if the same is founded on an actual right to the thing, or upon any valid contract.

As this is the case, mere possession of an equitable title, like that pertaining to the buyer, gives rise to insurable interest in the property in which such title inheres. Furthermore, considering that Zenith’s agent had been fully apprised of the circumstances prior to the actual issuance of the policy and the endorsement, it cannot now allege that complainant has no insurable interest on the property insured. Zenith is now precluded by the equitable principle of estoppel from impugning and dishonoring the very insurance policy contract it issued and the endorsement and increase in the coverage made through its duly authorized agent.

(34) Filipino Merchants v. CA 179 SCRA 638

Facts:



The Chao Tiek Seng a consignee of the shipment of fishmeal loaded on board the vessel SS Bougainville and unloaded at the Port of Manila on or about December 11, 1976 and seeks to recover from Filipino the amount of P51,568.62 representing damages to said shipment which has been insured by Filipino.



Filipino brought a third party complaint against Compagnie Maritime Des Chargeurs Reunis and/or E. Razon, Inc. seeking judgment against the third party defendants in case judgment is rendered against it.



It appears from the evidence presented that Chao insured said shipment with Filipino for the sum of P267,653.59 for the goods described as 600 metric tons of fishmeal in gunny bags of 90 kilos each from Bangkok, Thailand to Manila against all risks under warehouse to warehouse terms.



The fishmeal in 666 gunny bags were unloaded from the ship on December 11, 1976 at Manila unto the arrastre contractor E. Razon, Inc. and Filipino’s surveyor ascertained and certified that in such discharge 105 bags were in bad order condition as jointly surveyed by the ship's agent and the arrastre contractor.



Based on said computation the Chao made a formal claim against the Filipino for P51,568.62. A formal claim statement was also presented by the plaintiff against the vessel, but the Filipino refused to pay the claim.

Issues & Resolutions:

Filipino contends that an "all risks" marine policy has a technical meaning in insurance in that before a claim can be compensable it is essential that there must be "some fortuity," "casualty" or "accidental cause" to which the alleged loss is attributable and the failure of herein private respondent, upon whom lay the burden, to adduce evidence showing that the alleged loss to the cargo in question was due to a fortuitous event precludes his right to recover from the insurance policy.

SC did not uphold this contention. An "all risks policy" should be read literally as meaning all risks whatsoever and covering all losses by an accidental cause of any kind. The terms "accident" and "accidental", as used in insurance contracts, have not acquired any technical meaning. They are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common acceptance. Thus, the terms have been taken to mean that which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual and unforeseen. An accident is an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an event that proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause and, therefore, not expected.

Coverage under an "all risks" provision of a marine insurance policy creates a special type of insurance which extends coverage to risks not usually contemplated and avoids putting upon the insured the burden of establishing that the loss was due to the peril falling within the policy's coverage; the insurer can avoid coverage upon demonstrating that a specific provision expressly excludes the loss from coverage. A marine insurance policy providing that the insurance was to be "against all risks" must be construed as creating a special insurance and extending to other risks than are usually contemplated, and covers all losses except such as arise from the fraud of the insured. The burden of the insured, therefore, is to prove merely that the goods he transported have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated. Thereafter, the burden is shifted to the insurer to prove that the loss was due to excepted perils. To impose on the insured the burden of proving the precise cause of the loss or damage would be inconsistent with the broad protective purpose of "all risks" insurance.

In the present case, there being no showing that the loss was caused by any of the excepted perils, the insurer is liable under the policy

Filipino contends that Chao does not have insurable interest, being only a consignee of the goods.

Anent the issue of insurable interest, SC upheld the ruling of the CA that Chao, as consignee of the goods in transit under an invoice containing the terms under "C & F Manila," has insurable interest in said goods.

Section 13 of the Insurance Code defines insurable interest in property as every interest in property, whether real or personal, or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such nature that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the insured. In principle, anyone has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit from its existence or would suffer loss from its destruction whether he has or has not any title in, or lien upon or possession of the property. Insurable interest in property may consist in (a) an existing interest; (b) an inchoate interest founded on an existing interest; or (c) an expectancy, coupled with an existing interest in that out of which the expectancy arises.

Chao, as vendee/consignee of the goods in transit has such existing interest therein as may be the subject of a valid contract of insurance. His interest over the goods is based on the perfected contract of sale. The perfected contract of sale between him and the shipper of the goods operates to vest in him an equitable title even before delivery or before he performed the conditions of the sale. The contract of shipment, whether under F.O.B., C.I.F., or C. & F. as in this case, is immaterial in the determination of whether the vendee has an insurable interest or not in the goods in transit. The perfected contract of sale even without delivery vests in the vendee an equitable title, an existing interest over the goods sufficient to be the subject of insurance

Section 15. A carrier or depository of any kind has an insurable interest in a thing held by him

In document UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE YUCATÁN (página 82-89)