The insured properties were originally located in the Sanyo Factory under the fire insurance policy. During the policy period, the insured transferred the properties to the PACE Factory without notifying the insurer. This increased the risk level and fire rating for the properties. As a result, the insurer was entitled to rescind the contract according to the insurance code since the transfer violated the policy terms and increased the risk exposure without consent. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the insurer, finding they were not liable to pay the claim since the risk increase voided the coverage.
The insured properties were originally located in the Sanyo Factory under the fire insurance policy. During the policy period, the insured transferred the properties to the PACE Factory without notifying the insurer. This increased the risk level and fire rating for the properties. As a result, the insurer was entitled to rescind the contract according to the insurance code since the transfer violated the policy terms and increased the risk exposure without consent. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the insurer, finding they were not liable to pay the claim since the risk increase voided the coverage.
The insured properties were originally located in the Sanyo Factory under the fire insurance policy. During the policy period, the insured transferred the properties to the PACE Factory without notifying the insurer. This increased the risk level and fire rating for the properties. As a result, the insurer was entitled to rescind the contract according to the insurance code since the transfer violated the policy terms and increased the risk exposure without consent. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the insurer, finding they were not liable to pay the claim since the risk increase voided the coverage.
The insured properties were originally located in the Sanyo Factory under the fire insurance policy. During the policy period, the insured transferred the properties to the PACE Factory without notifying the insurer. This increased the risk level and fire rating for the properties. As a result, the insurer was entitled to rescind the contract according to the insurance code since the transfer violated the policy terms and increased the risk exposure without consent. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the insurer, finding they were not liable to pay the claim since the risk increase voided the coverage.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
When the insured violated a condition of a fire insurance factory.
factory. The Court has combed the records and found
policy providing for the non-transfer of the property insured nothing that would show that Malayan was duly notified of without the insurer’s consent, the violation thereof which the transfer of the insured properties. results into an increase of risk, entitles the insurer to rescind the contract. The transfer from the Sanyo Factory to the PACE Factory increased the risk. FACTS: With regards to the exposure of the risk under the old location, this was occupied as factory of Malayan issued a fire insurance policy over PAP’s automotive/computer parts by the assured, and factory of machineries and equipment, located in the Sanyo Factory in zinc & aluminum die cast, plastic gear for copy machine by PEZA, effective for 1 year and was thereafter renewed for Sanyo Precision Phils., Inc. with a rate of 0.449% under another year. 6.1.2 A. But under Pace Pacific Mfg. Corporation this was occupied as factory that repacks silicone sealant to plastic During the subsistence of the renewed policy, the insured cylinders with a rate of 0.657% under 6.1.2 A. Hence, there machineries and equipment were totally lost by fire and PAP was an increase in the hazard as indicated by the increase in filed a claim. rate The Court agrees with Malayan that the transfer to the Pace Factory exposed the properties to a hazardous Malayan denied the claim on the ground that, at the time environment and negatively affected the fire rating stated in of the loss, the insured properties were transferred by the renewal policy. The increase in tariff rate from 0.449% PAP to a location different from that indicated in the to 0.657% put the subject properties at a greater risk of loss. policy (Pace Factory still in PEZA). Such increase in risk would necessarily entail an increase in the premium payment on the fire policy. PAP argued that Malayan cannot escape liability as it was informed of the transfer by RCBC, the party duty-bound to Considering that the original policy was renewed on an "as relay such information. is basis," it follows that the renewal policy carried with it the same stipulations and limitations. The terms and conditions RTC: Malayan is liable to pay PAP under the insurance in the renewal policy provided, among others, that the policy because although there was a change in the condition location of the risk insured against is at the Sanyo factory in of the thing insured as a result of the transfer to another PEZA. The subject insured properties, however, were totally location, the insurance company failed to show proof that burned at the Pace Factory. Although it was also located in such transfer resulted in the increase of the risk insured PEZA, Pace Factory was not the location stipulated in the against. renewal policy. There being an unconsented removal, the CA: Affirmed RTC decision transfer was at PAP’s own risk. Consequently, it must suffer the consequences of the fire. Issue: Whether or not PAP Co. can claim the proceeds of the fire Hence, Malayan is entitled to rescind the insurance contract insurance Whether or not the transfer from the Sanyo Factory to the Under Section 168 of the Insurance Code, the insurer is PACE Factory increased the risk entitled to rescind the insurance contract in case of an alteration in the use or condition of the thing insured. Section Ruling: NO. 168 of the Insurance Code provides, as follows: aD Condition No. 9(c) of the renewal policy provides: 9. Under any of the following circumstances the insurance Section 68. An alteration in the use or condition of a thing ceases to attach as regards the property affected unless the insured from that to which it is limited by the policy made insured, before the occurrence of any loss or damage, obtains without the consent of the insurer, by means within the the sanction of the company signified by endorsement upon control of the insured, and increasing the risks, entitles an the policy, by or on behalf of the Company: insurer to rescind a contract of fire insurance. xxx xxx xxx (c) If property insured be removed to any building or place Accordingly, an insurer can exercise its right to rescind an other than in that which is herein stated to be insured. insurance contract when the following conditions are present, to wit: Evidently, by the clear and express condition in the renewal 1) the policy limits the use or condition of the policy, the removal of the insured property to any building thing insured; 2) there is an alteration in said or place required the consent of Malayan. Any transfer use or condition; effected by the insured, without the insurer’s consent, would free the latter from any liability. 3) the alteration is without the consent of the insurer; In this case, the respondent failed to notify, and to obtain the 4) the alteration is made by means within the consent of, Malayan regarding the removal insured's control; and The records are bereft of any convincing and concrete evidence that Malayan was notified of the transfer of the 5) the alteration increases the risk of loss. insured properties from the Sanyo factory to the Pace In the case at bench, all these circumstances are present. It was clearly established that the renewal policy stipulated that the insured properties were located at the Sanyo factory; that PAP removed the properties without the consent of Malayan; and that the alteration of the location increased the risk of loss.