Prats v. Phoenix
Prats v. Phoenix
Prats v. Phoenix
RULING:
Yes. The proof submitted by the defendant tends to show that obscure
manipulations were used by the plaintiff in the storing of merchandise at 95 Plaza Gardenia and
in the removal of part of the contents of the bodega before the fire. If overinsurance and the
assemblage of goods at inflated values in the bodega at 95 Plaza Gardenia, together with the
surreptitious abstraction of goods therefrom by the insured, have suggested a possible intention
on the part of its manager to realize improperly on its insurance policies, this inference is, in our
opinion, but beyond reach of reasonable doubt by facts relative to the destruction of the place.
After the fire that a special investigation was made by the police department with the result that
Deputy Chief Lorenzo came to the conclusion that the fire had originated from an intentional act.
Reflection upon the proof before the court engenders in us the same belief and conducts us to the
further conclusion that Prats & Co. was not alien to the deed.
Decision AFFIRMED.