+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Insurance- Marine Cases

Insurance- Marine Cases

Date post: 03-Jun-2018
Category:
Upload: mariel-quiroz
View: 226 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 30

Transcript
  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    1/30

    FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. AMERICANHOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and PHILAMINSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

    Basic is the requirement that before suing to recover loss of ordamage to transported goods, the plaintiff must give the carrier notice of theloss or damage, within the period prescribed by the Warsaw Conventionand/or the airway bill.

    The Case Before us is a Petition for Review!" under Rule #$ of the Rulesof Court, challenging the %une #, &''! (ecision&" and the )eptember &!,&''! Resolution*" of the Court of +ppeals C+- in C+R C0 1o.$2&'2. 3he assailed (ecision disposed as follows4

    5W67R789R7, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby(:);:))7( for lac< of merit. 3he appealed (ecision of Branch !#= of theRegional 3rial Court of ;a stamp mars" warehouse. While the second, consisting of !G cartons,came in two &- days later, or on %anuary *!, !==#, in 8light 1o. ''G!*'1R3 which was li warehouse.Prior to the arrival of the cargoes, 8ederal 7Dpress informed 73C Cargo:nternational Corporation, the customs bros cargoes.

    59n 8ebruary !', !==#, (+R:9 C. (:917(+ E(:917(+>-, twelve !&-days after the cargoes arrived in ;anila, a nonlicensed custom>s bro

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    2/30

    5+s a consequence of the foregoing result of the veterinary biologics test,

    );:36A:17 abandoned the shipment and, declaring Etotal loss> for theunusable shipment, filed a claim with +6+C through its representative inthe Philippines, the Philam :nsurance Co., :nc. EP6:+;>- whichrecompensed );:36A:17 for the whole insured amount of 36:R3I1:17 369)+1( 36R77 61(R7( 36:R3I 1:17 (9+R)F*=,**=.''-. 3hereafter, respondents" filed an action for damages againstthe petitioner" imputing negligence on either or both of them in thehandling of the cargo.

    53rial ensued and ultimately concluded on ;arch !2, !==G with thepetitioner" being held solidarily liable for the loss as follows4

    EW67R789R7, Hudgment is hereby rendered in favor of respondents" andpetitioner and its Co(efendant Cargohaus" are directed to payrespondents", Hointly and severally, the following4

    !. +ctual damages in the amount of the peso equivalent of )F*=,**=.''with interest from the time of the filing of the complaint to the time thesame is fully paid.

    &. +ttorney>s fees in the amount of P$','''.'' and

    *. Costs of suit.

    Ruln! "# the C"u$t "# A%%eals 3he 3est Report issued by the nited)tates (epartment of +griculture +nimal and Plant 6ealth :nspection

    )ervice- was found by the C+ to be inadmissible in evidence. (espite thisruling, the appellate court held that the shipping Receipts were a prima facieproof that the goods had indeed been delivered to the carrier in goodcondition. We quote from the ruling as follows4

    5Where the plaintiff introduces evidence which shows 0rima +acie that thegoods were delivered to the carrier in good condition i.e., the shippingreceipts", and that the carrier delivered the goods in a damaged condition, apresumption is raised that the damage occurred through the fault ornegligence of the carrier

    , and this casts upon the carrier the burden ofshowing that the goods were not in good condition when delivered to the

    carrier, or that the damage was occasioned by some cause eDcepting thecarrier from absolute liability. 3his the petitioner" failed to discharge. D DD.J@"

    8ound devoid of merit was petitioner>s claim that respondents had nopersonality to sue. 3his argument was supposedly not raised in the +nsweror during trial.

    6ence, this Petition.

    The Issues :n its ;emorandum, petitioner raises the following issues forour consideration4

    +re the decision and resolution of the 6onorable Court of +ppeals propersubHect for review by the 6onorable Court under Rule #$ of the !==G Rulesof Civil ProcedureK

    :s the conclusion of the 6onorable Court of +ppeals L petitioner>s claimthat respondents have no personality to sue because the payment was made

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    3/30

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    4/30

    Subrogation

    pon receipt of the insurance proceeds, the consignee )mithssubrogatory right to sue for recovery under the bill of lading in case of lossof or damage to the cargo is Hurisprudentially upheld.J!#"

    :n the eDercise of its subrogatory right, an insurer may proceedagainst an erring carrier. 3o all intents and purposes, it stands in the placeand in substitution of the consignee. A +oriori, both the insurer and theconsignee are bound by the contractual stipulations under the bill of lading.!$"

    Prescription of Claim

    8rom the initial proceedings in the trial court up to the present,petitioner has tirelessly pointed out that respondents> claim and right ofaction are already barred. 3he latter, and even the consignee, never filedwith the carrier any written notice or complaint regarding its claim fordamage of or loss to the subHect cargo within the period required by theWarsaw Convention and/or in the airway bill. :ndeed, this fact has neverbeen denied by respondents and is plainly evident from the records.

    +irway Bill 1o. !!&@*2&$, issued by Burlington as agent ofpetitioner, states4

    5@. 1o action shall be maintained in the case of damage to or partial lossof the shipment unless a written notice, sufficiently describing the goodsconcerned, the approDimate date of the damage or loss, and the details ofthe claim, is presented by shipper or consignee to an office of Burlington

    within !#- days from the date the goods are placed at the disposal of theperson entitled to delivery, or in the case of total loss including nondelivery- unless presented within !&'- days from the date of issue of the+irway Bill".J!@"

    Relevantly, petitioner>s airway bill states4

    5!&./!&.! 3he person entitled to delivery must ma

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    5/30

    within * days from the date of receipt in the case of baggage and G daysfrom the date of receipt in the case of goods. :n case of delay the complaintmust be made at the latest within !# days from the date on which thebaggage or goods have been placed at his disposal.

    *- 7very complaint must be made in writing upon the document oftransportation or by separate notice in writing dispatched within the timesaforesaid.

    #- 8ailing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lieagainst the carrier, save in the case of fraud on his part.J!2"

    Condition Precedent

    :n this Hurisdiction, the filing of a claim with the carrier within thetime limitation therefor actually constitutes a condition precedent to theaccrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of or damage to thegoods.!=" 3he shipper or consignee must allege and prove the fulfillmentof the condition. :f it fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier canaccrue in favor of the former. 3he aforementioned requirement is areasonable condition precedentM it does not constitute a limitation of action.&'"

    3he requirement of giving notice of loss of or inHury to the goods isnot an empty formalism. 3he fundamental reasons for such a stipulation are!- to inform the carrier that the cargo has been damaged, and that it isbeing charged with liability thereforM and &- to give it an opportunity toeDamine the nature and eDtent of the inHury. 53his protects the carrier byaffording it an opportunity to ma compliance with this requirement within theprescribed period. While respondents may have had a cause of action then,they cannot now enforce it for their failure to comply with the aforesaidcondition precedent.

    We note that respondents are not without recourse. Cargohaus, :nc. petitioner>s codefendant in respondents> Complaint below has beenadHudged by the trial court as liable for, iner alia, 5actual damages in theamount of the peso equivalent of ) F*=,**=.J&$" 3his Hudgment was

    affirmed by the Court of +ppeals and is already final and eDecutory.&@"

    *HEREFORE, the Petition is ("AN&!, and the assailed (ecision""$! insofar as it pertains to Petitioner 8ederal 7DpressCorporation. 1o pronouncement as to costs.

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    6/30

    SULPICIO LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. FIRST LEPANTO+TAISHOINSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent.

    Before s is a Petition for Review on Ceriorari assailing the(ecision!" of the Court of +ppeals reversing the (ecision&" of theRegional 3rial Court R3C- of ;anila, Branch N:0, dismissing thecomplaint for damages for failure of the plaintiff to prove its case with apreponderance of evidence. +ssailed as well is the Resolution*" of theCourt of +ppeals denying petitioner>s ;otion for Reconsideration.

    THE FACTS 9n &$ 8ebruary !==&, 3aiyo Iuden Philippines, :nc. ownerof the goods- and (elbros, :nc. shipper- entered into a contract, evidencedby Bill of ading 1o. C7B/):1''2/=& issued by the latter in favor of theowner of the goods, for (elbros, :nc. to transport a shipment of goodsconsisting of three *- wooden crates containing one hundred thirtysiD!*@- cartons of inductors and C compound on board the 0 )ingapore 0&'from Cebu City to )ingapore in favor of the consignee, 3aiyo Iuden)ingapore Pte, td.

    8or the carriage of said shipment from Cebu City to ;anila, (elbros,:nc. engaged the services of the vessel ;/0 Philippine Princess, owned andoperated by petitioner )ulpicio ines, :nc. carrier-. 3he vessel arrived atthe 1orth 6arbor, ;anila, on 8ebruary !==&.

    (uring the unloading of the shipment, one crate containing fortytwo#&- cartons dropped from the cargo hatch to the pier apron. 3he owner ofthe goods eDamined the dropped cargo, and upon an alleged finding that thecontents of the crate were no longer usable for their intended purpose, they

    were reHected as a total loss and returned to Cebu City.

    3he owner of the goods filed a claim with herein petitionercarrierfor the recovery of the value of the reHected cargo which was refused by thelatter. 3hereafter, the owner of the goods sought payment from respondent8irst epanto3aisho :nsurance Corporation insurer- under a marineinsurance policy issued to the former. Respondentinsurer paid the claimless thirtyfive percent *$O- salvage value or P!=#, &&'.*!.

    3he payment of the insurance claim of the owner of the goods by therespondentinsurer subrogated the latter to whatever right or legal action theowner of the goods may have against (elbros, :nc. and petitionercarrier,

    )ulpicio ines, :nc. 3hus, respondentinsurer then filed claims forreimbursement from (elbros, :nc. and petitionercarrier )ulpicio ines, :nc.which were subsequently denied.

    9n '# 1ovember !==&, respondentinsurer filed a suit for damagesdoc

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    7/30

    well as the counterclaim filed by therein defendant )ulpicio ines, :nc. andthe crossclaim filed by (elbros, :nc. +ccording to the R3C4

    3he plaintiff has failed to prove its case. 3he first witness for the plaintiff

    merely testified about the payment of the claim based on the documentsaccompanying the claim which were the Pacs crossclaim.#"

    + ;otion for Reconsideration was then filed by herein respondent

    insurer and subsequently denied by the trial court in an 9rder dated 'G8ebruary !==$ on the ground that it did not raise any new issue. 3hus,respondentinsurer instituted an appeal with the Court of +ppeals, whichreversed the dismissal of the complaint by the lower court, the decretalportion of which reads4

    W67R789R7, the appeal is granted. 3he decision appealed from isR707R)7(. (efendantsappellees (elbros and )ulpicio ines are herebyordered to pay, Hointly and severally, plaintiffappellant the sum ofP!=#,&&'.*! representing actual damages, plus legal interest counted fromthe filing of the complaint until fully paid.$"

    3he appellate court disposed of the issues in the case in this wise4

    8urthermore, the evidence shows that one of the three crates fell during theunloading at the pier in ;anila. 3he wooden crate which fell was damagedsuch that this particular crate was not anymore sent to )ingapore and wasinstead shipped bac< to Cebu from ;anila. pon eDamination, it was foundthat two &- cartons of the fortytwo #&- cartons contained in this cratewere eDternally damaged. 3hey were torn at the sides and their top portionsor flaps were open. 3hese facts were admitted by all the parties.(efendantappellees, however, insist that it was only the eDternal pac

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    8/30

    +s We have already found, there is damage suffered by the goods of theshipper. 3his consists in the destruction of one wooden crate and thetearing of two of the cardboard boDes therein rendering then unfit to be sentto )ingapore. (efendantappellee )ulpicio ines admits that this crate fell

    while it was being unloaded at the ;anila pier. 8alling of the crate wasnegligence on the part of defendantappellee )ulpicio ines under thedoctrine of res i0sa lo3uiur. (efendantappellee )ulpicio ines cannoteDculpate itself from liability because it failed to prove that it eDercised duediligence in the selection and supervision of its employees to prevent thedamage.@"

    9n &! %une !===, herein petitionercarrier filed its ;otion forReconsideration of the decision of the Court of +ppeals which wassubsequently denied in a Resolution dated !* 9ctober !===. 6ence, theinstant petition.

    (uring the pendency of the appeal before this Court, (elbros, :nc.filed a manifestation stating that its appealG" filed before this Court hadbeen dismissed for being filed out of time and thus the case as against it wasdeclared closed and terminated. +s a consequence, it paid in full theamount of the damages awarded by the appellate court to the respondentinsurer. Before this Court, (elbros, :nc. prays for reimbursement,contribution, or indemnity from its codefendant, herein petitionercarrier)ulpicio ines, :nc. for whatever it had paid to respondentinsurer inconsonance with the decision of the appellate court declaring both (elbros,:nc. and petitionercarrier )ulpicio ines, :nc. Hointly and severally liable.

    ISSUESPetitionercarrier raises !. &4e Cour o+ A00eals erred in no

    4oldin 4a 4e rial cour 6usl and correcl dismissed 4e com0lainaains $ul0icio Lines, 74ic4 dismissal is alread +inal.

    &. &4e Cour o+ A00eals erred in no dismissin 4e a00eal+or +ailure o+ a00ellan o com0l 7i4 4e ec4nicalre3uiremen o+ 4e "ules o+ Cour.

    RULIN OF THE COURT We shall first address the procedural issue

    raised by petitionercarrier, )ulpicio ines, :nc. that the Court of +ppealsshould have dismissed the appeal for failure of respondentinsurer to attacha copy of the decision of the trial court to its appellant>s brief in violation ofRule ##, )ection !*h- of the Rules of Civil Procedure.2"

    + perusal of the records will show, however, that in a Resolution="dated !* +ugust !==@, the Court of +ppeals required herein respondentinsurer to submit seven G- copies of the questioned decision within five $-days from notice. )aid Resolution was properly complied with.

    +s a rule, the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who sees predecessorininterest, did incurdamages, and if so, whether or not petitionercarrier is liable for the same.

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/127536.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/127536.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/127536.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/140436.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/140436.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/138556.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/138556.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/140436.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/138556.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/138556.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/127536.htm
  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    9/30

    :t cannot be denied that the shipment sustained damage while in thecustody of petitionercarrier. :t is not disputed that one of the three *-crates did fall from the cargo hatch to the pier apron while petitionercarrierwas unloading the cargo from its vessel. 1either is it impugned that upon

    inspection, it was found that two &- cartons were torn on the side and thetop flaps were open and that two &- cello bags, each of $' pieces ferriinductors, were missing from the cargo.

    Petitionercarrier contends that its liability, if any, is only to theeDtent of the cargo damage or loss and should not include the lac< of fitnessof the shipment for transport to )ingapore due to the damaged pac

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    10/30

    shoes of the insured and can recover only if the insured lis prayer contained in its manifestationthat, in case the decision in the instant case be adverse to petitionercarrier,a pronouncement as to the matter of reimbursement, indemnification orcontribution in favor of (elbros, :nc. be included in the decision, this Courtwill not pass upon said issue since (elbros, :nc. has no personality beforethis Court, it not being a party to the instant case. 1otwithstanding, thisshall not bar any action (elbros, :nc. may institute against petitionercarrier)ulpicio ines, :nc. with respect to the damages the latter is liable to pay.

    *HEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed (ecision of the Court of

    +ppeals dated &@ ;ay !=== and its Resolution dated !* 9ctober !=== arehereby +88:R;7(. 1o costs.

    AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner, vs.TANTUCO ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent.

    Before us is a Petition for Review on Ceriorari assailing the(ecision of the Court of +ppeals in C+.R. C0 1o. $&&&! promulgated

    on %anuary !#, !===, which affirmed in oo the (ecision of the Regional3rial Court, Branch $*, ucena City in Civil Case 1o. =&$! dated 9ctober!@, !==$.

    Respondent 3antuco 7nterprises, :nc. is engaged in the coconut oilmilling and refining industry. :t owns two oil mills. Both are located at itsfactory compound at :yam, ucena City. :t appears that respondentcommenced its business operations with only one oil mill. :n !=22, itstarted operating its second oil mill. 3he latter came to be commonlyreferred to as the new oil mill.

    3he two oil mills were separately covered by fire insurance policiesissued by petitioner +merican 6ome +ssurance Co., Philippine Branch.!"3he first oil mill was insured for three million pesos P*,''','''.''- underPolicy 1o. *'@G#*&** for the period ;arch !, !==! to !==&.&" 3henew oil mill was insured for siD million pesos P@,''','''.''- under Policy

    1o. *'@G#*&*&!= for the same term.*" 9fficial receipts indicatingpayment for the full amount of the premium were issued by the petitionerQsagent.#"

    + fire that bro

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    11/30

    defendant to pay plaintiff4

    a- P#,#'@,$*@.#' representing damages for loss by fire of its insured

    property with interest at the legal rateM b- P2','''.'' for litigationeDpensesM c- P*'','''.'' for and as attorney>s feesM and d- Pay the costs.

    Petitioner assailed this Hudgment before the Court of +ppeals. 3he appellatecourt upheld the same in a (ecision promulgated on %anuary !#, !===, thepertinent portion of which states4

    5W67R789R7, the instant appeal is hereby (:);:))7( for lac< of meritand the trial court>s (ecision dated 9ctober !@, !==$ is hereby +88:R;7(in toto.

    Petitioner moved for reconsideration. 3he motion, however, was denied for

    lac< of merit in a Resolution promulgated on %une !', !===.

    6ence, the present course of action, where petitioner ascribes to theappellate court the following errors4

    5!- 3he Court of +ppeals erred in its conclusion that the issue ofnonpayment of the premium was beyond its Hurisdiction because itwas raised for the first time on appeal.J2"

    5&- 3he Court of +ppeals erred in its legal interpretation of Q8ire7Dtinguishing +ppliances WarrantyQ of the policy.J="

    5*- With due respect, the conclusion of the Court of +ppeals givingno regard to the parole evidence rule and the principle of estoppel iserroneous.J!'"

    3he petition is devoid of merit.

    3he primary reason advanced by the petitioner in resisting the claimof the respondent is that the burned oil mill is not covered by any insurance

    policy. +ccording to it, the oil mill insured is specifically described in thepolicy by its boundaries in the following manner4

    58ront4 by a driveway thence at !2 meters distance by Bldg. 1o. &.

    Right4 by an open space thence by Bldg. 1o. #.

    eft4 +dHoining thence an imperfect wall by Bldg. 1o. #.

    Rear4 by an open space thence at 2 meters distance.J

    6owever, it argues that this specific boundary description clearly pertains,not to the burned oil mill, but to the other mill. :n other words, the oil millgutted by fire was not the one described by the specific boundaries in thecontested policy.

    What eDacerbates respondent>s predicament, petitioner posits, is thatit did not have the supposed wrong description or mista

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    12/30

    !!" :n view of the custom of insurance agents to eDamine buildings beforewriting policies upon them, and since a mista

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    13/30

    despite the impreciseness in the specification of the boundaries, theinsurance will cover the new oil mill. 3his can be seen from the testimonyon cross of ;r. 3antuco4

    +33I. )+91+4

    4 Iou mentioned, sir, that at least in so far as 7Dhibit + is concernyou have read what the policy contents.sic-

    Aindly ta

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    14/30

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    15/30

    Before us is a petition for review on ceriorariof the (ecision!" ofthe Court of +ppeals in C+.R. C0 1o. *=2*@ promulgated on %une !G,!==@, reversing the decision of the Regional 3rial Court of ;a

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    16/30

    )ection !!* of the :nsurance Code of the Philippines, which states that inevery marine insurance upon a ship or freight, or freightage, or upon anything which is the subHect of marine insurance there is an implied warrantyby the shipper that the ship is seaworthy. Consequently, the insurer will not

    be liable to the assured for any loss under the policy in case the vesselwould later on be found as not seaworthy at the inception of the insurance.:t theori?ed that when private respondent paid CalteD the value of its lostcargo, the act of the private respondent is equivalent to a tacit recognitionthat the illfated vessel was seaworthyM otherwise, private respondent wasnot legally liable to CalteD due to the latter>s breach of implied warrantyunder the marine insurance policy that the vessel was seaworthy.

    3he petitioner also alleges that the Court of +ppeals erred in rulingthat ;3 ;aysun was not seaworthy on the ground that the marine officerwho served as the chief mate of the vessel, 8rancisco Berina, was allegedlynot qualified. nder )ection !!@ of the :nsurance Code of the Philippines,

    the implied warranty of seaworthiness of the vessel, which the privaterespondent admitted as having been fulfilled by its payment of the insuranceproceeds to CalteD of its lost cargo, eDtends to the vessel>s complement.Besides, petitioner avers that although Berina had merely a &nd officer>slicense, he was qualified to act as the vessel>s chief officer under Chapter:0#'*-, Category :::a-*-ii-aa- of the Philippine ;erchant ;arine Rulesand Regulations. :n fact, all the crew and officers of ;3 ;aysun wereeDonerated in the administrative investigation conducted by the Board of;arine :nquiry after the subHect accident.@"

    :n any event, petitioner further avers that private respondent failed,for uns property has been insured, and he has receivedindemnity from the insurance company for the inHury or loss arising out ofthe wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shallbe subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or theperson who has violated the contract. :f the amount paid by the insurancecompany does not fully cover the inHury or loss, the aggrieved party shall beentitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or inHury.

    3he right of subrogation has its roots in equity. :t is designed topromote and to accomplish Hustice and is the mode which equity adopts tocompel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who in Hustice and goodconscience ought to pay.=" :t is not dependent upon, nor does it grow outof, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. :t accruessimply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.!'"Consequently, the payment made by the private respondent insurer- toCalteD assured- operates as an equitable assignment to the former of all the

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    17/30

    remedies which the latter may have against the petitioner.

    8rom the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,common carriers are bound to observe eDtraordinary diligence in the

    vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported bythem, according to all the circumstances of each case.!!" :n the event ofloss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriersshall be responsible unless the same is brought about, among others, byflood, storm, earthquacloc< in the morning on +ugust !@, !=2@, the wind speedremained at ten !'- to twenty &'-

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    18/30

    of which properly belongs to the courts.!2" :n the case at bar, petitioner isliable for the insured value of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil belongingto CalteD for its failure to rebut the presumption of fault or negligence ascommon carrier!=" occasioned by the uneDplained sin

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    19/30

    3he facts with reference to the manner in which the sea water effectedentrance into the hold may be summari?ed as follows, substantially inaccordance with the findings of the trial court4

    3he drain pipe which served as a discharge from the water closet passeddown through the compartment where the rice in question was stowed andthence out to sea through the wall of the compartment, which was a part ofthe wall of the ship. 3he Hoint or elbow where the pipe changed its directionwas of cast ironM and in course of time it had become corroded and abradeduntil a longitudinal opening had appeared in the pipe about one inch inlength. 3his hole had been in eDistence before the voyage was begun, andan attempt had been made to repair it by filling with cement and boltingover it a strip of iron. 3he effect of loading the boat was to submerge thevent, or orifice, of the pipe until it was about !2 inches or & feet below thelevel of the sea. +s a consequence the sea water rose in the pipe. 1avigationunder these conditions resulted in the washing out of the cementfilling

    from the action of the sea water, thus permitting the continued flow of thesalt water into the compartment of rice.

    3he court found in effect that the opening above described had resulted incourse of time from ordinary wear and tear and not from the straining of theship in rough weather on that voyage. 3he court also found that the repairsthat had been made on the pipe were slovenly and defective and that, byreason of the condition of this pipe, the ship was not properly equipped toreceive the rice at the time the voyage was begun. 8or this reason the courtheld that the ship was unseaworthy.

    3he policy of insurance was signed upon a form long in use amongcompanies engaged in maritime insurance. :t purports to insure the cargofrom the following among other ris

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    20/30

    :t must be considered to be settled, furthermore, that a loss which, in theordinary course of events, results from the natural and inevitable action ofthe sea, from the ordinary wear and tear of the ship, or from the negligentfailure of the shipQs owner to provide the vessel with proper equipment to

    convey the cargo under ordinary conditions, is not a peril of the sea. )uch aloss is rather due to what has been aptly called the peril of the ship. 3heinsurer underta

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    21/30

    would have been liable.

    3he three decisions in the 6ouse of ords above referred to containelaborate discussions concerning the liability of shipowners and insurers,

    respectively, for damage happening to cargo in the course of a sea voyageMand it would be presumptuous for us to underta

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    22/30

    MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION,petitioner, vs.THE HON.COURT OF APPEALS and T5C MAR5ETINCORPORATION, respondents.

    +ssailed in this petition for review on ceriorariis the decision of theCourt of +ppeals in C+.R. 1o. #*'&*!" which affirmed, with slightmodification, the decision of the Regional 3rial Court of Cebu, Branch !$.

    Private respondent 3AC ;ar

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    23/30

    restraints or detainments contemplated in the former clause were thoseeffected by political or eDecutive acts. osses occasioned by riot or ordinaryHudicial processes were not covered therein. :n other words, arrest, restraintor detainment within the meaning of Clause !& or 8.C. T ). Clause- rules

    out detention by ordinary legal processes. 6ence, arrests by civil authorities,such as what happened in the instant case, is an eDcepted ris< under Clause!& of the :nstitute Cargo Clause or the 8.C. T ). Clause. 6owever, with thedeletion of Clause !& of the :nstitute Cargo Clause and the consequentadoption or institution of the :nstitute War Clauses Cargo-, the arrest andsei?ure by Hudicial processes which were eDcluded under the former policybecame one of the covered ris

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    24/30

    and eDpectations of the parties. :t added that the policies clearly stipulatethat they cover the ris

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    25/30

    and the consequences thereof of hostilities or warli

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    26/30

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    27/30

    !- third party defendant 7. Ra?on, :nc. is ordered to reimburse third partyplaintiff the sum of P&$,#G!.2' with legal interest from the date of paymentuntil the date of reimbursement, and &- the thirdparty complaint againstthird party defendant Compagnie ;aritime (es Chargeurs Reunis is

    dismissed.6

    3he facts as found by the trial court and adopted by the Court of +ppealsare as follows4

    3his is an action brought by the consignee of the shipment of fishmealloaded on board the vessel )) Bougainville and unloaded at the Port of;anila on or about (ecember !!, !=G@ and see

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    28/30

    !. 3he Court of +ppeals erred in its interpretation and application of the allris

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    29/30

  • 8/12/2019 Insurance- Marine Cases

    30/30

    in the vendee an equitable title, an eDisting interest over the goods sufficientto be the subHect of insurance.

    8urther, +rticle !$&* of the Civil Code provides that where, in pursuance of

    a contract of sale, the seller is authori?ed or required to send the goods tothe buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether named by the buyer ornot, for, the purpose of transmission to the buyer is deemed to be a deliveryof the goods to the buyer, the eDceptions to said rule not obtaining in thepresent case. 3he Court has heretofore ruled that the delivery of the goodson board the carrying vessels parta


Recommended