Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 877 views

    Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    The document summarizes an insurance dispute between Young and Midland Textile Insurance Company. Young stored fireworks, considered hazardous goods, in his insured residence and store, violating the terms of the insurance contract. When a fire damaged the property, the insurance company refused to pay, claiming the hazardous goods violated the contract. The court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that storing hazardous goods breached the contract terms, even if the goods did not cause the loss. Compliance with contract terms is required for recovery of insurance payouts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    877 views2 pages
    The document summarizes an insurance dispute between Young and Midland Textile Insurance Company. Young stored fireworks, considered hazardous goods, in his insured residence and store, violating the terms of the insurance contract. When a fire damaged the property, the insurance company refused to pay, claiming the hazardous goods violated the contract. The court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that storing hazardous goods breached the contract terms, even if the goods did not cause the loss. Compliance with contract terms is required for recovery of insurance payouts.

    Original Description:

    These are some important case digests on Law on Insurance

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes an insurance dispute between Young and Midland Textile Insurance Company. Young stored fireworks, considered hazardous goods, in his insured residence and store, violating the terms of the insurance contract. When a fire damaged the property, the insurance company refused to pay, claiming the hazardous goods violated the contract. The court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that storing hazardous goods breached the contract terms, even if the goods did not cause the loss. Compliance with contract terms is required for recovery of insurance payouts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    877 views2 pages

    Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    The document summarizes an insurance dispute between Young and Midland Textile Insurance Company. Young stored fireworks, considered hazardous goods, in his insured residence and store, violating the terms of the insurance contract. When a fire damaged the property, the insurance company refused to pay, claiming the hazardous goods violated the contract. The court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that storing hazardous goods breached the contract terms, even if the goods did not cause the loss. Compliance with contract terms is required for recovery of insurance payouts.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Digested by: Kwin Asunto Subject: Insurance Title: Young vs. Midland Textile insurance company [G.R. No.

    9370. March 31, 1915.] K. S. YOUNG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE MIDLAND TEXTILE INSURANCE COMPANY, defendant-appellant Topic: Warranties: violation of material warranty, effect Facts: The purpose of the present action is to recover the sum of P3,000 upon an insurance policy. The lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P2,708.78, and costs. From that judgment the defendant appealed to this court. The undisputed facts upon which said action is based are as follows: The plaintiff occupied a building at '321 Calle Claveria, as a residence and bodega (storehouse). On the 29th of May, 1912, the defendant, in consideration of the payment of a premium of P60, entered into a contract of insurance with the plaintiff promising to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P3,000, in case said residence and bodega and contents should be destroyed by fire. One of the conditions of said contract was that no hazardous goods be stored or kept in the building. On the 4th or 5th of February, 1913, the plaintiff placed in said residence and bodega three boxes which belonged to him and which were filled with fireworks for the celebration of the Chinese new year. On the 18th day of March, 1913, said residence and bodega and the contents thereof were partially destroyed. Fireworks were found in a part of the building not destroyed by the fire; that they in no way contributed to the fire, or to the loss occasioned thereby. Issue: Whether or not the placing of said fireworks in the building insured, under the conditions above enumerated, they being "hazardous goods," is a violation of the terms of the contract of insurance. Held: Yes. The word "stored" has been defined to be a deposit in a store or warehouse for preservation or safe keeping; to put away for future use, especially for future consumption; to place in a warehouse or other place of deposit for safe keeping. Said definition does not include a deposit in a store, in small quantities, for daily use. "Daily use" precludes the idea of deposit for preservation or safe keeping, as well as a deposit for future consumption or safe keeping. A violation of the terms of a contract of insurance, by either party, will constitute the basis for a termination of the contractual relations, at the election of the other. The right to terminate the contractual relations exists even though the violation was not the direct cause of the loss. In the present case, the deposit of the "hazardous goods," in the building insured, was a violation of the terms of the contract. Although the hazardous goods did not contribute to the loss, the insurer, at his election, was relieved from liability Said deposit created a new risk, not included in the terms of the contract. The insurer had neither been paid, nor had he entered into a contract, to cover the increased risk.

    Contracts of insurance are contracts of indemnity, upon the terms and conditions specified therein. Parties have a right to impose such reasonable conditions at the time of the making of the contract as they deem wise and necessary. The rate of premium is measured by the character of the risk assumed. The insurer, for a comparatively small consideration, undertakes to guarantee the insured against loss or damage, upon the terms and conditions agreed upon, and upon no other. When the insurer is called upon to pay, in case of loss, he may justly insist upon a fulfillment of the terms of the contract. If the insured cannot bring himself within the terms and conditions of the contract, he is not entitled to recover for any loss suffered. The terms of the contract constitute the measure of the insurer's liability. If the contract has been terminated, by a violation of its terms on the part of the insured, there can be no recovery. Compliance with the terms of the contract is a condition precedent to the right of recovery. Courts cannot make contracts for the parties. While contracts of insurance are construed most favorably to the insured yet they must be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties themselves have used. Astute and subtle distinctions should not be permitted, when the language of the contract is plain and unambiguous. Such distinctions tend to bring the law itself into disrepute. The judgment of the lower court is revoked and the defendant is relieved from any responsibility under said complaint, and, without any finding as to costs.

    You might also like