Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE CO., Inc. v. consignee, paid for the shipment.

As
CA there was yet no delivery to the
GR No. 85141 Nov. 28, 1989 Second consignee, ownership (and interest)
Division does not yet pass to him.

Regalado, J.: Issues:


1. Whether CA was correct in its
Nature: interpretation of the “all risk”
Petition for review on certiorari clause in the maritime
challenging CA decision in finding insurance contract.
FilMerchant to be liable to pay plaintiff. 2. Whether the insured had
insurable interest over the
Facts: property insured.
The Consignee/buyer bought fishmeal
products from Bangkok and had it Ruling:
delivered to the port of Manila. He
entered into an insurance contract with a.)“All risks policy” has no
defendant insurance company technical meaning.
(FilMerchant) under policy no. M-2678 The clause in question reproduced: This
for P267,653.59 and for goods insurance is against all risks of loss or
described as 600 metric tons damage to the subject-matter insured
of fishmeal in new gunny bags of 90 but shall in no case be deemed to
kilos each. What was actually extend to cover loss, damage, or
imported was 59.940mtons expense proximately caused by delay
in 666gunny bags. Upon arrival or inherent vice or nature of the subject-
at Manila, arrastre and matter insured. Claims recoverable
defendant’s surveyor found hereunder shall be payable irrespective
227 bags in bad of percentage.
order condition. Because of this
loss, buyer formally claimed from An "all risks policy" should be read
FilMerchant but the said insurance literally as meaning all risks
company refused to pay. He whatsoever and covering all losses
brought suit. Trial court ruled for by an accidental cause of any
him and against FilMerchant, CA kind. The very nature of the term "all
affirmed trial court hence this petition. risks" must be given a broad and
FilMerchant argues: (1) CA comprehensive meaning as covering
erred in the interpretation and any loss other than a willful and
application of the “all risk” fraudulent act of the insured.
clause of maritime
i n s u r a n c e policy. It says it should
not be held liable for partial loss This is pursuant to the very purpose
notwithstanding the clear absence of of an "all risks" insurance to give
proof of some fortuitous event, casualty, protection to the insured in those
or accidental cause to which the loss is cases where difficulties of logical
attributable.(2) Respondent had no explanation or some mystery
insurable interest in the subject cargo. surround the loss or damage to
The shipment reveals that it is a “C& F” property.
contract of shipment. The seller, not the
Burden of proof shifts to the insurer. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and
Generally, the burden of proof is upon the assailed decision of the respondent Court
the insured to show that a loss arose of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
from a covered peril, but under an "all
risks" policy the burden is not on
the insured to prove the precise cause
of loss or damage for which it seeks
compensation. The insured under an "all
risks insurance policy" has the initial
burden of proving that the cargo was in
good condition when the policy
attached and that the cargo was
damaged when unloaded from the
vessel; thereafter, the burden then shifts
to the insurer to show the exception to
the coverage.

b)Vendee/Consignee has insurable


interest

SC: The shipment contract being


that of cost and freight (C&F) is
immaterial in the determination of
insurable interest. The perfected
contract of sale vests in the
vendee an equitable title,
an interest sufficient enough to be
insurable. Further, Art. 1523 NCC
provides that where, in pursuance of a
contract of sale, the seller is authorized
or required to send the goods to the
buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier,
whether named by the buyer or not, for,
the purpose of transmission to the
buyer is deemed to be a delivery of
the goods to the buyer, the exceptions
to said rule not obtaining in the
present case. The Court has
heretofore ruled that the delivery
of the goods on board the carrying
vessels partake of the nature of
actual delivery since, from that
time, the foreign buyers assumed
the risks of loss of the goods and paid
the insurance premium covering them.