Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 612 views

    General Insurance V. NG Hua: GR No. L-14373, Jan 30, 1960

    Uploaded by

    Reynaldo Yu
    Ng Hua took out an insurance policy from General Insurance for his stock. The policy stated there was no co-insurance, but Ng Hua had taken out another policy from General Indemnity for the same goods. The policy also stated that any other insurances must be disclosed. After a fire, General Insurance refused to pay the claim, citing breach of warranty from failing to disclose the other policy. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding the non-disclosure of the other policy was a material violation allowing them to rescind the policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    General Insurance V. NG Hua: GR No. L-14373, Jan 30, 1960

    Uploaded by

    Reynaldo Yu
    612 views8 pages
    Ng Hua took out an insurance policy from General Insurance for his stock. The policy stated there was no co-insurance, but Ng Hua had taken out another policy from General Indemnity for the same goods. The policy also stated that any other insurances must be disclosed. After a fire, General Insurance refused to pay the claim, citing breach of warranty from failing to disclose the other policy. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding the non-disclosure of the other policy was a material violation allowing them to rescind the policy.

    Original Description:

    aaa

    Original Title

    aa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ng Hua took out an insurance policy from General Insurance for his stock. The policy stated there was no co-insurance, but Ng Hua had taken out another policy from General Indemnity for the same goods. The policy also stated that any other insurances must be disclosed. After a fire, General Insurance refused to pay the claim, citing breach of warranty from failing to disclose the other policy. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding the non-disclosure of the other policy was a material violation allowing them to rescind the policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    612 views8 pages

    General Insurance V. NG Hua: GR No. L-14373, Jan 30, 1960

    Uploaded by

    Reynaldo Yu
    Ng Hua took out an insurance policy from General Insurance for his stock. The policy stated there was no co-insurance, but Ng Hua had taken out another policy from General Indemnity for the same goods. The policy also stated that any other insurances must be disclosed. After a fire, General Insurance refused to pay the claim, citing breach of warranty from failing to disclose the other policy. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding the non-disclosure of the other policy was a material violation allowing them to rescind the policy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    GENERAL INSURANCE V.

    NG HUA
    GR No. L-14373, Jan 30, 1960

    Section 74. The violation of a material warranty, or


    other material provision of a policy, on the part of
    either party thereto, entitles the other to rescind.
    FACTS:
    On April 15, 1952, the defendant General Insurance &
    Surety Corporation issued its Insurance Policy No. 471,
    insuring against fire, for one year, the stock in trade of
    the Central Pomade Factory owned by Ng Hua, the
    insured.
    The face of the policy bore the annotation: "Co-
    Insurance Declared NIL“
    It
    is undenied that Ng Hua had obtained fire insurance
    on the same goods, for the same period of time, in the
    amount of P20,000.00 from General Indemnity Co
    The aforesaid Policy No. 471 contains this stipulation
    printed on the back thereof;
    "3.The Insured shall give notice to the company of any
    insurance or insurances already effected, or which
    may subsequently be effected, covering any of the
    property hereby insured, and unless such notice be
    given and the particulars of such insurance or
    insurances be stated in or endorsed on this Policy by or
    on behalf of the Company before the occurrence of
    any loss or damage, all benefits under this Policy shall
    be forfeited."
    The next day, the Pomade Factory building
    burned, resulting in destruction by fire of the
    insured properties. Ng Hua claimed indemnity
    from the insurer.
    The policy covered damages up to P10,000.00;
    but after some negotiations and upon
    suggestion of the Manila Adjustment Company,
    he reduced the claim to P5,000.00.
    Nevertheless, the defendant insurer refused to
    pay for various reasons, namely (a) action was
    not filed in time; (b) violation of warranty; (c)
    submission of fraudulent claim; and (d) failure to
    pay the premium.
    ISSUE:
    W/N there is a breach of material warranty that will rescind
    the policy.

    HELD:
    Yes, The annotation then, must be deemed to be a
    warranty that the property was not insured by any other
    policy. Violation thereof entitles the insurer to rescind. Such
    misrepresentation is fatal, the materiality of non-disclosure
    of other insurance policies is not open to doubt.
    ISSUE:
    W/N there is a breach of material warranty that will rescind
    the policy.

    HELD:
    Yes, The annotation then, must be deemed to be a
    warranty that the property was not insured by any other
    policy. Violation thereof entitles the insurer to rescind. Such
    misrepresentation is fatal, the materiality of non-disclosure
    of other insurance policies is not open to doubt.
    Furthermore, even if the annotation were overlooked, the
    defendant insurer would still be free from liability because
    there is no question that the policy issued by General
    Indemnity has not been stated in nor endorsed on Policy
    No. 471 of defendant. And as stipulated in the above-
    quoted provisions of such policy "all benefit under this
    policy shall be forfeited.“
    Having reached this conclusion, we deem it unnecessary
    to discuss the other defenses. The insurer is acquitted from
    all the liability under the policy

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy