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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 378 views

    American Home Assurance V Tantuco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Anne P. Arejola
    The respondent owned two oil mills that were insured under separate fire insurance policies issued by the petitioner. A fire destroyed the new oil mill, but the petitioner denied the insurance claim, arguing that the policy referred to a different building. The Court of Appeals found for the respondent, determining that the parties intended to insure the new oil mill despite the misdescription. In construing insurance policies, courts will interpret them liberally and in favor of coverage if possible, considering the overall intent and purpose of the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    American Home Assurance V Tantuco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Anne P. Arejola
    378 views1 page
    The respondent owned two oil mills that were insured under separate fire insurance policies issued by the petitioner. A fire destroyed the new oil mill, but the petitioner denied the insurance claim, arguing that the policy referred to a different building. The Court of Appeals found for the respondent, determining that the parties intended to insure the new oil mill despite the misdescription. In construing insurance policies, courts will interpret them liberally and in favor of coverage if possible, considering the overall intent and purpose of the contract.

    Original Description:

    American Home Assurance v Tantuco Digest

    Original Title

    American Home Assurance v Tantuco Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent owned two oil mills that were insured under separate fire insurance policies issued by the petitioner. A fire destroyed the new oil mill, but the petitioner denied the insurance claim, arguing that the policy referred to a different building. The Court of Appeals found for the respondent, determining that the parties intended to insure the new oil mill despite the misdescription. In construing insurance policies, courts will interpret them liberally and in favor of coverage if possible, considering the overall intent and purpose of the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    American Home Assurance V Tantuco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexis Anne P. Arejola
    The respondent owned two oil mills that were insured under separate fire insurance policies issued by the petitioner. A fire destroyed the new oil mill, but the petitioner denied the insurance claim, arguing that the policy referred to a different building. The Court of Appeals found for the respondent, determining that the parties intended to insure the new oil mill despite the misdescription. In construing insurance policies, courts will interpret them liberally and in favor of coverage if possible, considering the overall intent and purpose of the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY vs. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES, INC. G.R.

    No. 138941 October 8, 2001


    FACTS:
    Respondent Tantuco Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in the coconut oil milling and refining
    industry. It owns two oil mills which were separately covered by fire insurance policies
    issued by petitioner American Home Assurance Co., Philippine Branch. The first oil mill
    was insured for P3,000,000.00 under Policy No. 306- 7432324-3 for the period March 1,
    1991 to 1992. The new oil mill was insured for P6,000,000.00 under Policy No. 306-
    7432321-9 for the same term. Official receipts indicating payment for the full amount of
    the premium were issued by the petitioner's agent. A fire that broke out in the early
    morning of September 30,1991 gutted and consumed the new oil mill. Respondent
    immediately notified the petitioner of the incident but petitioner rejected respondent's
    claim for the insurance proceeds on the ground that no policy was issued by it covering
    the burned oil mill. It stated that the description of the insured establishment referred to
    another building thus: "Our policy nos. 306-7432321-9 (Ps 6M) and 306-7432324-4 (Ps
    3M) extend insurance coverage to your oil mill under Building No. 5, whilst the affected
    oil mill was under Building No. 14. "
    ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its legal interpretation of 'Fire
    Extinguishing Appliances Warranty' of the policy.
    HELD: In construing the words used descriptive of a building insured, the greatest
    liberality is shown by the courts in giving effect to the insurance. In view of the custom of
    insurance agents to examine buildings before writing policies upon them, and since a
    mistake as to the identity and character of the building is extremely unlikely, the courts
    are inclined to consider that the policy of insurance covers any building which the parties
    manifestly intended to insure, however inaccurate the description may be.
    Notwithstanding, therefore, the misdescription in the policy, it is beyond dispute, to our
    mind, that what the parties manifestly intended to insure was the new oil mill. If the parties
    really intended to protect the first oil mill, then there is no need to specify it as new. In
    determining what the parties intended, the courts will read and construe the policy as a
    whole and if possible, give effect to all the parts of the contract, keeping in mind always,
    however, the prime rule that in the event of doubt, this doubt is to be resolved against the
    insurer. In determining the intent of the parties to the contract, the courts will consider the
    purpose and object of the contract.

    You might also like