Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, petitioner-appellant, vs.

OLIVA YAP, represented by


her attorney-in-a!t, C"UA SOON POON respondent-appellee.
#$%R% No% L-&'(&( De!e)ber *+, *+,- .ERNANDE/, J.:]
TOPIC0 Double Insurance
DOCTRINE0 In the absence of consent, waiver or estoppel on the part of the insurer, a breach thereof will
prevent a recovery on the policy
.ACTS0 (c/o Figis previous digest
!. "espondent #liva $ap was the owner of a store in a two-storey building where she sold shopping bags and
footwear, such as shoes, sandals and step-ins. %hua &oon 'oon #liva $ap(s son-in-law, was in charge of
the store.
). *pril !+, !+,) - respondent $ap too- out .ire Ins1ran!e Po2i!y No% -(*' fro. petitioner Pioneer
Ins1ran!e 3 S1rety Corporation with a a!e 4a21e o P(5,666%66 !o4erin7 her sto!8s, oi!e 1rnit1re,
i9t1res and ittin7s of every -ind and description. *.ong the conditions in the policy e/ecuted by the
parties are the following0
a. 123he Insured shall 7i4e noti!e to the Co)pany o any ins1ran!e or ins1ran!es a2ready
ee!ted, or :hi!h )ay s1bse;1ent2y be ee!ted, !o4erin7 any o the property hereby
ins1red, 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%<
). *pril !+, !+,) 4 During the effectivity of the Fire Insurance 'olicy with 'ioneer, an ins1ran!e po2i!y or
P(6,666%66 iss1ed by the $reat A)eri!an Ins1ran!e Co)pany !o4erin7 the sa)e properties :as
noted on said po2i!y as !o-ins1ran!e.
a. 5ater, the parties e/ecuted an endorse)ent on 'olicy 6o. 7)!+, stating0
i. It is hereby declared and agreed that the co-insurance e/isting at present under this policy is
as follows0 ')8,888.88 9 6orthwest Ins., and not as originally stated.
:. "espondent #liva $ap too- out another fire insurance policy for ')8,888.88 covering the sa.e properties,
this ti.e fro. the .edera2 Ins1ran!e Co)pany, In!.
a. ;owever, it was pro!1red :itho1t noti!e to and the :ritten !onsent o petitioner Pioneer
Ins1ran!e 3 S1rety Corporation and, thereore, :as not noted as a !o-ins1ran!e in Po2i!y No%
-(*+%
7. * fire bro-e out in the building housing respondent $ap(s above-.entioned store, and the said store was
burned.
<. "espondent $ap filed an insurance clai., but the sa.e was denied on the ground of =breach and/or
violation of any and/or all ter.s and conditions= of 'olicy 6o. 7)!+.
,. $ap filed the present action as-ing, a.ong others, for pay.ent of the face value of her fire insurance policy.
,% Pioneer=s deense0
a% Yap too8 o1t an ins1ran!e po2i!y ro) another ins1ran!e !o)pany :itho1t petitioner>s
8no:2ed7e and?or endorse)ent, in 4io2ation o the e9press stip12ations in Po2i!y No% -(*+,
hen!e, a22 beneits a!!r1in7 ro) the po2i!y :ere dee)ed oreited%
>. TRIAL COURT 3 CA0 ruled in favor of #livia $ap, finding no breach of the insurance contract.
ISSUE0 ?/6 there is a violation by $ap of the co-insurance clause which absolved 'ioneer Insurance fro.
liability.
"ELD0 Yes.
!. 3he ruling of the %* that @reat *.erican substituted Federal Insurance was not established and proved.
a. If anything was substituted for the @reat *.erican Insurance policy, it could only be the
6orthwest Insurance policy for the sa.e a.ount of ')8,888.88.
). 3he endorse.ent .ade shows that the clear intention of the parties to recogniAe the e/istence of only
one co-insurance which is 6orthwest Insurance
3. $ap cites Gonzales La O vs. e! "ong Lin #ire and $arine %nsurance Co: =If, :ith the 8no:2ed7e
o the e/istence of other insurances which the defendant dee.ed 4io2ations o the !ontra!t, it has
preerred to !ontin1e the po2i!y, its a!tion a)o1nts to a :ai4er o the ann12)ent o the
!ontra!t ...=
a. In the present case0 where petitioner is assu.ed to have waived a valuable right, nothing less
than a clear, positive waiver, .ade with full -nowledge of the circu.stances, .ust be reBuired.
7. Cy the plain ter.s of the policy, other insurance without the consent of petitioner would ipso facto avoid
the contract.
a. 6o reBuire.ent of affir.ative act of election on the part of the co.pany to .a-e operative the
clause avoiding the contract, wherever the specified conditions should occur. Its ob2i7ations
!eased, 1n2ess, bein7 inor)ed o the a!t, it !onsented to the additiona2 ins1ran!e%
<. 3he validity of a clause in a fire insurance policy to the effect that the procure.ent of additional
insurance without the consent of the insurer renders ipso facto the policy void is well-settled
a. 'D"'#&E #F "EFDI"EGE630 to prevent over-insurance and thus avert the perpetration of
fraud.
i. 3he public, as well as the insurer, is interested in preventing the situation in which a fire
would be profitable to the insured
ii. @1sti!e Story0 =3he insured has no right to co.plain, for he assents to co.ply with all
the stipulation on his side, in order to entitle hi.self to the benefit of the contract, which,
upon reason or principle, he has no right to as- the court to dispense with the
perfor.ance of his own part of the agree.ent, and yet to bind the other party to
obligations, which, but for those stipulation would not have been entered into.=