Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Gen. Insurance & American Home-DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Elsie Cayetano
    Gen. Insurance & Surety Corp v. NG Hua Ng Hua obtained fire insurance from General Insurance for contents of his Central Pomade Factory but failed to disclose that he had also obtained separate insurance from General Indemnity for the same goods and same time period. When a fire occurred, General Insurance denied the claim due to misrepresentation. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding that Ng Hua's non-disclosure of the other insurance policy was a material misrepresentation that entitled the insurer to rescind the policy. American Home Assurance v. Tantuco American Home Assurance insured two oil mills, an original and a new one, owned by Tantuco Enter

    Copyright:

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

    Gen. Insurance & American Home-DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Elsie Cayetano
    75 views1 page
    Gen. Insurance & Surety Corp v. NG Hua Ng Hua obtained fire insurance from General Insurance for contents of his Central Pomade Factory but failed to disclose that he had also obtained separate insurance from General Indemnity for the same goods and same time period. When a fire occurred, General Insurance denied the claim due to misrepresentation. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding that Ng Hua's non-disclosure of the other insurance policy was a material misrepresentation that entitled the insurer to rescind the policy. American Home Assurance v. Tantuco American Home Assurance insured two oil mills, an original and a new one, owned by Tantuco Enter

    Original Description:

    insurance 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?

    Gen. Insurance & Surety Corp v. NG Hua Ng Hua obtained fire insurance from General Insurance for contents of his Central Pomade Factory but failed to disclose that he had also obtained separate insurance from General Indemnity for the same goods and same time period. When a fire occurred, General Insurance denied the claim due to misrepresentation. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding that Ng Hua's non-disclosure of the other insurance policy was a material misrepresentation that entitled the insurer to rescind the policy. American Home Assurance v. Tantuco American Home Assurance insured two oil mills, an original and a new one, owned by Tantuco Enter

    Copyright:

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

    Gen. Insurance & American Home-DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Elsie Cayetano
    Gen. Insurance & Surety Corp v. NG Hua Ng Hua obtained fire insurance from General Insurance for contents of his Central Pomade Factory but failed to disclose that he had also obtained separate insurance from General Indemnity for the same goods and same time period. When a fire occurred, General Insurance denied the claim due to misrepresentation. The court ruled in favor of General Insurance, finding that Ng Hua's non-disclosure of the other insurance policy was a material misrepresentation that entitled the insurer to rescind the policy. American Home Assurance v. Tantuco American Home Assurance insured two oil mills, an original and a new one, owned by Tantuco Enter

    Copyright:

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

    Gen. Insurance & Surety Corp v.

    NG Hua coverage extended only to the oil mill under Building


    No. 5.
    Facts:
    ISSUE:
    In 1952, General Insurance issued a fire policy to Ng
    Hua to cover the contents of the Central Pomade W/N the new oil mill is covered by the fire insurance
    Factory owned by him.There was a provision in the policy
    policy that should there be any insurance already
    effected or to be subsequently procured, the insured HELD:
    shall give notice to the insurer. Ng Hua declared that
    there was non. The very next day, the building and Yes.
    the goods stored therein burned. Subsequently, the
    In construing the words used descriptive of a building
    claim of Ng Hua for the proceeds was denied by
    insured, the greatest liberality is shown by the courts
    General since it discovered that Ng Hua had obtained
    in giving effect to the insurance. In view of the custom
    an insurance from General Indemnity for the same
    of insurance agents to examine buildings before
    goods and for the same period of time.
    writing policies upon them, and since a mistake as to
    Issue: the identity and character of the building is extremely
    unlikely, the courts are inclined to consider the policy
    W/N there was misrepresentation by Ng Hua. of insurance covers any building which the parties
    manifestly intended to insure, however inaccurate the
    Ruling: description may be.

    Yes. Notwithstanding, therefore, the misdescription in the


    policy, it is beyond dispute, to our mind, that what the
    The annotation must be deemed to be a warranty that parties manifestly intended to insure was the new oil
    the property was not insured by any other policy. mill. If the parties really intended to protect the first
    Violation thereof entitles the insurer to rescind. Such oil mill, then there is no need to specify it as new.
    misrepresentation is fatal. The materiality of non- Indeed, it would be absurd to assume that the
    disclosure of other insurance policies is not open to respondent would protect its first oil mill for different
    doubt. amounts and leave uncovered its second one.

    Furthermore, even if the annotations were


    overlooked, the insurer would still be free from
    liability because there is no question that the policy
    issued by General Indemnity had not been stated in
    nor endorsed on Policy No. 471 of defendant. And as
    stipulated in the above-quoted provisions of such
    policy "all benefit under this policy shall be forfeited."

    American Home Assurance v. Tantuco

    FACTS:

    Tantuco Enterprises, Inc. is a coconut oil milling and


    refining company. It owned two mills (the first oil mill
    and a new one). The two oil mills are separately
    covered by fire insurance policies issued by American
    Home Assurance Co. On Sept. 30, 1991, a fire broke
    out and gutted and consumed the new oil mill.
    American Home rejected the claim for the insurance
    proceeds on the ground that no policy was issued by it
    covering the burned oil mill. It stated that the new oil
    mill was under Building No. 15 while the insurance

    You might also like