Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    G.R. No. 147839: Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    Insurance Company of North America insured Intercapitol Marketing Corporation and Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. for unpaid book debts related to clothing materials sold to customers. A fire destroyed the store where the goods were located. Insurance Company paid the claims and sued the store owner, Gaisano Cagayan, Inc., seeking subrogation to the rights of the insured companies. The Supreme Court ruled that Insurance Company could recover against Gaisano for the insured debt of Intercapitol as the insurance policy covered book debts, not the goods. However, Insurance Company could not recover the amount paid to Levi Strauss as no subrogation receipt was provided.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 147839: Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    67 views3 pages
    Insurance Company of North America insured Intercapitol Marketing Corporation and Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. for unpaid book debts related to clothing materials sold to customers. A fire destroyed the store where the goods were located. Insurance Company paid the claims and sued the store owner, Gaisano Cagayan, Inc., seeking subrogation to the rights of the insured companies. The Supreme Court ruled that Insurance Company could recover against Gaisano for the insured debt of Intercapitol as the insurance policy covered book debts, not the goods. However, Insurance Company could not recover the amount paid to Levi Strauss as no subrogation receipt was provided.

    Original Title

    # 34.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Insurance Company of North America insured Intercapitol Marketing Corporation and Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. for unpaid book debts related to clothing materials sold to customers. A fire destroyed the store where the goods were located. Insurance Company paid the claims and sued the store owner, Gaisano Cagayan, Inc., seeking subrogation to the rights of the insured companies. The Supreme Court ruled that Insurance Company could recover against Gaisano for the insured debt of Intercapitol as the insurance policy covered book debts, not the goods. However, Insurance Company could not recover the amount paid to Levi Strauss as no subrogation receipt was provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views3 pages

    G.R. No. 147839: Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    Insurance Company of North America insured Intercapitol Marketing Corporation and Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. for unpaid book debts related to clothing materials sold to customers. A fire destroyed the store where the goods were located. Insurance Company paid the claims and sued the store owner, Gaisano Cagayan, Inc., seeking subrogation to the rights of the insured companies. The Supreme Court ruled that Insurance Company could recover against Gaisano for the insured debt of Intercapitol as the insurance policy covered book debts, not the goods. However, Insurance Company could not recover the amount paid to Levi Strauss as no subrogation receipt was provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v.

    Insurance Company of North America (2006)

    G.R. No. 147839 June 8, 2006

    Lessons Applicable: Existing Interest (Insurance)

    Laws Applicable: Article 1504,Article 1263, Article 2207 of the Civil Code, Section 13 of Insurance Code

    FACTS:

     Intercapitol Marketing Corporation (IMC) is the maker of Wrangler Blue Jeans. while Levi Strauss
    (Phils.) Inc. (LSPI) is the local distributor of products bearing trademarks owned by Levi Strauss &
    Co

     IMC and LSPI separately obtained from Insurance Company of North America fire insurance
    policies for their book debt endorsements related to their ready-made clothing materials which
    have been sold or delivered to various customers and dealers of the Insured anywhere in the
    Philippines which are unpaid 45 days after the time of the loss

     February 25, 1991: Gaisano Superstore Complex in Cagayan de Oro City, owned by Gaisano
    Cagayan, Inc., containing the ready-made clothing materials sold and delivered by IMC and
    LSPI was consumed by fire.

     February 4, 1992: Insurance Company of North America filed a complaint for damages
    against Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. alleges that IMC and LSPI filed their claims under their respective
    fire insurance policies which it paid thus it was subrogated to their rights

    o Gaisano Cagayan, Inc: not be held liable because it was destroyed due to fortuities event
    or force majeure

     RTC: IMC and LSPI retained ownership of the delivered goods until fully paid, it must bear the
    loss (res perit domino)

     CA: Reversed - sales invoices is an exception under Article 1504 (1) of the Civil Code to res perit
    domino

    ISSUE: W/N Insurance Company of North America can claim against Gaisano Cagayan for the debt that
    was isnured

    HELD: YES. petition is partly GRANTED. order to pay P535,613 is DELETED

     insurance policy is clear that the subject of the insurance is the book debts and NOT goods sold
    and delivered to the customers and dealers of the insured

     ART. 1504. Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the ownership
    therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the ownership therein is transferred to the buyer
    the goods are at the buyer's risk whether actual delivery has been made or not, except that:
    (1) Where delivery of the goods has been made to the buyer or to a bailee for the buyer, in pursuance of
    the contract and the ownership in the goods has been retained by the seller merely to secure
    performance by the buyer of his obligations under the contract, the goods are at the buyer's risk from
    the time of such delivery;

     IMC and LSPI did not lose complete interest over the goods. They have an insurable interest
    until full payment of the value of the delivered goods. Unlike the civil law concept of res perit
    domino, where ownership is the basis for consideration of who bears the risk of loss, in property
    insurance, one's interest is not determined by concept of title, but whether insured has
    substantial economic interest in the property

     Section 13 of our Insurance Code defines insurable interest as "every interest in property,
    whether real or personal, or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such nature
    that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the insured." Parenthetically, under Section 14
    of the same Code, an insurable interest in property may consist in: (a) an existing interest; (b) an
    inchoate interest founded on existing interest; or (c) an expectancy, coupled with an existing
    interest in that out of which the expectancy arises.

     Anyone has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit from its existence or would
    suffer loss from its destruction.

    o it is sufficient that the insured is so situated with reference to the property that he
    would be liable to loss should it be injured or destroyed by the peril against which it is
    insured

    o an insurable interest in property does not necessarily imply a property interest in, or a
    lien upon, or possession of, the subject

    o matter of the insurance, and neither the title nor a beneficial interest is requisite to the
    existence of such an interest

     insurance in this case is not for loss of goods by fire but for petitioner's accounts with IMC and
    LSPI that remained unpaid 45 days after the fire - obligation is pecuniary in nature

    o obligor should be held exempt from liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event
    only holds true when the obligation consists in the delivery of a determinate thing and
    there is no stipulation holding him liable even in case of fortuitous event

     Article 1263 of the Civil Code in an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction of
    anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligation (Genus nunquan perit)

     The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of
    respondent as insurer and IMC as the insured, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance
    claim

     Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the
    insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract
    complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against
    the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.

     As to LSPI, no subrogation receipt was offered in evidence.

    o Failure to substantiate the claim of subrogation is fatal to petitioner's case for recovery
    of the amount of P535,613

    You might also like