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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 148 views

    120 Yu Ban Chuan v. Fieldmens

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    Yu Ban Chuan owned a business that was destroyed by fire. He filed insurance claims with two companies to cover the loss of merchandise. The insurance companies denied the claims, arguing the loss amount was inflated and fraudulent. At trial, Yu Ban Chuan relied on an inventory of merchandise he submitted to tax authorities to prove the value of goods lost. However, the court found the inventory was not binding on the defendants and did not prove the goods were present at the time of the fire, as Yu Ban Chuan had incentive to overstate values. The court determined the insurance claims were fraudulent.

    Copyright:

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

    120 Yu Ban Chuan v. Fieldmens

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    148 views2 pages
    Yu Ban Chuan owned a business that was destroyed by fire. He filed insurance claims with two companies to cover the loss of merchandise. The insurance companies denied the claims, arguing the loss amount was inflated and fraudulent. At trial, Yu Ban Chuan relied on an inventory of merchandise he submitted to tax authorities to prove the value of goods lost. However, the court found the inventory was not binding on the defendants and did not prove the goods were present at the time of the fire, as Yu Ban Chuan had incentive to overstate values. The court determined the insurance claims were fraudulent.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Yu Ban Chuan owned a business that was destroyed by fire. He filed insurance claims with two companies to cover the loss of merchandise. The insurance companies denied the claims, arguing the loss amount was inflated and fraudulent. At trial, Yu Ban Chuan relied on an inventory of merchandise he submitted to tax authorities to prove the value of goods lost. However, the court found the inventory was not binding on the defendants and did not prove the goods were present at the time of the fire, as Yu Ban Chuan had incentive to overstate values. The court determined the insurance claims were fraudulent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    148 views2 pages

    120 Yu Ban Chuan v. Fieldmens

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    Yu Ban Chuan owned a business that was destroyed by fire. He filed insurance claims with two companies to cover the loss of merchandise. The insurance companies denied the claims, arguing the loss amount was inflated and fraudulent. At trial, Yu Ban Chuan relied on an inventory of merchandise he submitted to tax authorities to prove the value of goods lost. However, the court found the inventory was not binding on the defendants and did not prove the goods were present at the time of the fire, as Yu Ban Chuan had incentive to overstate values. The court determined the insurance claims were fraudulent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Yuq Ban Chuan v. Fieldmen’s Insurance Co.

    No. L-19851. June 29, 1965

    FACTS:
    1. Yu Ban Chuan was engaged in the wholesale dealing of general merchandise and school supplies.
    At first, his business was located at 612 Nueva Street, Manila.
    2. He insured his merchandise against fire with Fieldmen’s Insurance Co and Paramount. Surety &
    Insurance Co. also issued an “open” policy.
    3. When Yu Ban Chuan transferred its business establishment at 680 Muelle de Binondo,
    Fieldmen’s and Paramount agreed to have the coverage of its insurance policy transferred to the
    same new premises.
    4. While both insurance policies were in full force and effect, Yu Ban Chuan’s business
    establishment was destroyed by fire.
    5. The next day after the occurrence of fire, Yu Ban Chuan verbally notified the respective agents of
    the defendant insurer.
    6. The adjusters (H.H Bayne and Manila Adjustment Co.) of the defendant insurance company
    required Yu Ban Chuan to submit certain papers and documents. However, Yu Ban Chuan failed
    to submit the required documets. Until finally the defendants insurance company rejected the
    claims and denied liability.
    7. Yu Ban Chuan commenced suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
    8. In their defense, the insurance companies contend that Yu Ban Chuan failed to prove the the loss
    claimed and that the claim was false and fraudulent claim. They also invoked that the cause of
    fire was intentional.
    9. After trial, the court below upheld the claim of the plaintiff, but refused to award damages or
    interest at more than the legal rate. Both parties appealed.

    In proving the value of his loss, Yu Ban Chuan relied upon the merchandise inventory, which he allegedly
    submitted to BIR. The inventory reflected the total value of P328,202.67.

    ISSUE: Whether the merchandise inventory submitted by Yu Ban Chuan can be the basis of the of the
    actual value of the merchandise destroyed- NO

    HELD:
    The plaintiff adheres to the inventory as the immaculate basis for the actual worth of stocks that were
    burned, on the ground that it was made from actual count, and in compliance with law. But this
    inventory is not binding on the defendants, since it was prepared without their intervention. It is
    well to note that plaintiff had every reason to show that the value of his stock of goods exceeded the
    amount of insurance that he carried. And the inventory, having been made prior to the fire, was no proof
    of the existence of these goods at the store when the fire occurred. True, there were merchandise that
    were actually destroyed by. But when fraud is conceived, what is true is subtly hidden by the schemer
    beneath proper and legal appearances, including the preparation of the inventory.

    Shielding himself under Section 82 of the Insurance Act, the plaintiff asserts that in submitting his proof
    of loss he was "not bound to give such proof as would be necessary in a court of justice". The assertion is
    correct, but does not give him any justification for submitting false proofs. Their falsity is the best
    evidence of the fraudulent character and the unmeritoriousness of plaintiff's claim.

    The filing of collection suits for unpaid purchases against Yu Ban Chuan, however valid these may be, do
    not legitimize his fraudulent claim against the insurers in the present case, nor show that the goods
    allegedly delivered were at the store when the fire occurred. It is markworthy that in some instances the
    debts are only attested by certifications from the creditors.

    You might also like