121 Go Lu v. Yorkshire

GO LU v.
YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

GO LU v. THE SCOTTISH UNION AND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
G.R. No. L-18090 | July 25, 1922
FACTS:
1. Go Lu was a merchant engaged in the purchase and sale of bolt goods in Manila. He occupied a bodega at
Calle Jaboneros, also occupied by Eastern Asia Commercial Company.
2. Northern Assurance Company and Commercial Assurance Company , for P10,000, and for a premium of
P250, each insured Go Lu’s stocks of goods in the bodega against loss from fire for one year.
3. A week later, the Yorkshire Insurance Company issued a policy on the same goods for another P10,000 for
the same period.
4. A week thereafter, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company also issued a policy on the same goods
for P10,000 for a period of one year.
5. While all 4 policies were in force, a fire occurred in that portion of the building occupied by the Eastern Asia
Commercial Company, resulting in a loss and damage to the Go Lu’s goods, which were insured.
6. At the time of the fire, Go Lu claims that he had 66 case of bolt goods in the bodega -- total loss of 50 cases,
total damage of the remaining 16 cases, the value of w/c is P14,102.27.
7. Hence, Go Lu filed an action against (1) Yorkshire, and (2) Scottish, in which he seeks to recover from each
of them the full amount of their respective policies. Go Lu claimed that the value of the 66 cases is
P51,427.96, and that, after deducting the salvage value, his net loss was P44,539.96, and that the total
amount of insurance w/c he should receive under the four policies was P33,492.40.
8. To prove the number of cases in the building, Go Lu introduced in evidence certain original books of entry
w/c were in Chinese, together with a translation into Spanish. It appears therein that:
a. March 1919: 50 cases in stock
b. In April, May, and June, he bought 87 cases; Total of 137 cases,
c. Sold 71 cases; Hence, at the time of the fire, he had 66 cases left, of w/c 16 only were salvaged.
9. LC ordered Yorkshire and Scottish to each pay for P8,373.10. Found that at the time of the fire, there were
indeed 66 cases. It based its finding on Go Lu’s books.
10. Yorkshire & Scottish: That not more than 16 cases were destroyed from which he received P6,888, the
amount of their salvage value, and, in substance, admit their liability for the difference between the actual
value of the 16 cases and their salvage value; That Go Lu submitted fraudulent proof of the amount of his
loss and so, he is not entitled to recover anything.
ISSUE:
1. What is the value of the goods which Go Lu had in the building at the time of the fire? Value of 16 cases --
P7,594.67.
2. Is Go Lu entitled to recover? NO
RULING:
1. All the members of this court are of the opinion that Go Lu lost 16 cases only in the fire which are of the
admitted value of P14,102.27, from which he received P6,507.60 net, as salvage, leaving his actual loss at
P7,594.67.
In an action on a fire insurance policy to recover the value of bolt goods alleged to have been destroyed
by fire, it devolves upon the plaintiff to prove the amount of his loss by a preponderance of the
evidence.
 While the trial court gave credence to the original entries in Go Lu’s books, w/c might tend to prove that he
purchased 87 cases, and had 50 cases in stock, out of w/c he sold 71 cases, the entries made in the books,
however, are NOT evidence that the goods when purchased were delivered to, and placed in this particular
bodega, or that when sold, they were taken from, and out of, that bodega.
 The fire alarm was promptly turned on, and the fire department reached the building within two or three
minutes after the alarm, and that period, it threw water on the remains of the building to prevent the fire
from spreading. All witnesses for both parties agree that after the fire, there were about 16 cases of piece
goods found, 3 of which were in a burnt condition.
 Although numerous persons were at and around the fire, no witness testified that there was any evidence
remaining of the 50 cases, w/c the claimed were destroyed. There is no evidence anywhere in the record
that, after the fire, anything was found or remained of the 50 cases, and it is the theory of Go Lu that the 50
cases were completely destroyed and consumed by the fire, w/c is why there was not any physical evidence
left of their destruction. In the very nature of things, there would be some evidence of the existence of the
other 50 cases.
 Although Go Lu’s goods were in the same building caught up by fire, they were in a separate and distinct
portion from that which was occupied by the Eastern Asia Commercial Company where hemp was stored.
The burden was upon Go Lu to prove the amount of his loss by a preponderance of the evidence. The record
does not show why all of the 50 cases in dispute were completely consumed by the fire, and no particle of
any one of them was left remaining, and why the other 16 were found in the building after the fire and were
not totally destroyed, and, yet, it is admitted that 16 cases were found in the building after the fire. It is
common and ordinary sense that in a fire of that nature, something would have been left or found after the
fire, which would tend to show the loss and destruction of portions of some of the other 50 cases. It is not
reasonable that the 50 cases would be completely destroyed and wiped out of existence, and that the
identity of the other 16 would remain, 13 of which were intact. If the 50 cases were totally destroyed, the
other 16 cases would also have been destroyed, and that there would not have been any evidence left of
their identity.
 Go Lu did not offer any evidence of the remains or physical condition of the 50 cases after the fire tending to
show that the 50 cases were destroyed and consumed by the fire.
 George B. Blake, the foreman of the fire department, was there a few minutes after the alarm, and had
charge of the fire. His testimony is clear and convincing that he did not see more than 16 cases, and that
there was no evidence or any loss, destruction, or damage of any more than 16 cases.
2. YES. Go Lu is not entitled to recover anything.
Section 13 of the policy provides: "If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made
or used in support thereof, or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the Insured or anyone acting on
his behalf to obtain any benefit under this Policy; or, if the loss or damage be occasioned by willful act, or with
the connivance of the Insured; or, if the Insured or anyone acting on his behalf shall hinder or obstruct the
Company in doing any of the acts referred to in Condition 12; or, if the claim be made and rejected and an
action or suit be not commenced within three months after such rejection, or within three months after the
Arbitrator or Arbitrators or Umpire shall have made their award, all benefit under this Policy shall be
forfeited."
The validity of the clause above quoted is sustained by numerous uniform decisions, and is valid.
 The facts existing at and after the fire are conclusive evidence that there were only 16 cases of goods in the
bodega at the time of the fire, and the majority of the court are of the opinion Go Lu knew that his claim was
fraudulent at the time it was made, and for such reason, he is not entitled to recover anything.

121 Go Lu v. Yorkshire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

121 Go Lu v. Yorkshire

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

121 Go Lu v. Yorkshire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GO LU v.

YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

G.R. No. L-18090 | July 25, 1922

2. YES. Go Lu is not entitled to recover anything.

You might also like