Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Antonina Lampano Vs Placida Jose

    Uploaded by

    Dario G. Torres
    Barreto took out an insurance policy on a house he constructed for Jose, paying the premiums himself. Later, Jose sold the house to Lampano. When the house burned down, Barreto collected the insurance proceeds. Lampano claimed she was entitled to the money. The court ruled that the insurance policy was a contract between Barreto and the insurer alone. As Lampano was not party to the contract and assumed no risk, she had no right to the proceeds. The court also found Barreto had an insurable interest in the house as its constructor who was still owed money.

    Copyright:

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

    Antonina Lampano Vs Placida Jose

    Uploaded by

    Dario G. Torres
    99 views1 page
    Barreto took out an insurance policy on a house he constructed for Jose, paying the premiums himself. Later, Jose sold the house to Lampano. When the house burned down, Barreto collected the insurance proceeds. Lampano claimed she was entitled to the money. The court ruled that the insurance policy was a contract between Barreto and the insurer alone. As Lampano was not party to the contract and assumed no risk, she had no right to the proceeds. The court also found Barreto had an insurable interest in the house as its constructor who was still owed money.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Antonina Lampano vs Placida Jose

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Barreto took out an insurance policy on a house he constructed for Jose, paying the premiums himself. Later, Jose sold the house to Lampano. When the house burned down, Barreto collected the insurance proceeds. Lampano claimed she was entitled to the money. The court ruled that the insurance policy was a contract between Barreto and the insurer alone. As Lampano was not party to the contract and assumed no risk, she had no right to the proceeds. The court also found Barreto had an insurable interest in the house as its constructor who was still owed money.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views1 page

    Antonina Lampano Vs Placida Jose

    Uploaded by

    Dario G. Torres
    Barreto took out an insurance policy on a house he constructed for Jose, paying the premiums himself. Later, Jose sold the house to Lampano. When the house burned down, Barreto collected the insurance proceeds. Lampano claimed she was entitled to the money. The court ruled that the insurance policy was a contract between Barreto and the insurer alone. As Lampano was not party to the contract and assumed no risk, she had no right to the proceeds. The court also found Barreto had an insurable interest in the house as its constructor who was still owed money.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Antonina Lampano vs Placida Jose

    30 Phil. 537 Mercantile Law Insurance Law The Policy Insurance as a Contract between
    Insurer and Insured Only
    In 1912, Placida Jose contracted with Mariano Barreto for the construction of a house worth
    P6,000.00. While the house is under construction, Barreto, with the consent of Jose, took out an
    insurance policy in his own name on the said building. Barreto paid the corresponding premium.
    Later, Jose sold the house to Antonina Lampano for P6,000.00. In 1913, the house was gutted by
    fire. Barreto was able to collect P3,600.00 from the insurance policy. Lampano then demanded
    that Barreto hand her over the proceeds because she alleged that Jose verbally agreed to transfer
    to her the said insurance policy along with the property.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Lampano has a right to collect from the insurance policy.
    HELD: No. In the case at bar, Barretto assumed the responsibility for the insurance. The
    premiums were paid by him without any agreement or right to recoup the amount paid therefor
    should no loss result to the property. It would not, therefore, be in accordance with law and his
    contractual obligations to compel him to account for the insurance money, or any part thereof, to
    Lampano, who assumed no risk whatever. It is well settled that a policy of insurance is a distinct
    independent contract between the insured and insurers, and third persons have no right either in a
    court of equity, or in a court of law, to the proceeds of it, unless there be some contract or trust,
    expressed or implied, between the insured and third persons.
    As to the question whether or not Barreto has an insurable interest on the house, the answer is in
    the affirmative. He constructed the building, furnishing all the materials and supplies, and
    insured it after it had been completed. Further, it appears that Jose has not fully paid Barreto as
    she has an outstanding balance of P2,000.00

    You might also like