GR 44119; (March, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44119 ; March 30, 1937
SHARRUF & CO., known also as SHARRUF & ESKENAZI, SALOMON SHARRUF and ELIAS ESKENAZI, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. BALOISE FIRE INSURANCE CO., SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., and SPRINGFIELD INSURANCE CO., represented by KUENZLE & STREIFF, INC., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiffs Salomon Sharruf and Elias Eskenazi, doing business under the firm name “Sharruf & Co.,” obtained fire insurance policies from defendant insurance companies totaling P40,000 for their merchandise. They later executed a formal partnership contract, changing the firm name to “Sharruf & Eskenazi.” A fire occurred in their locked premises on September 22, 1933. The insurers refused to pay the claim, alleging the plaintiffs had no insurable interest, the fire was of incendiary origin, and the claim was fraudulent. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the insurers to pay the claim.
ISSUE
1. Whether the plaintiffs had personality to sue and an insurable interest.
2. Whether the fire was of incendiary origin.
3. Whether the claim for loss filed by the plaintiffs was fraudulent.
RULING
1. Yes, the plaintiffs had personality to sue and an insurable interest. The new firm “Sharruf & Eskenazi,” composed of the same partners as the original insured “Sharruf & Co.,” acquired the rights under the insurance policies upon the change of name, as it continued the same business.
2. No, the fire could not be attributed to the plaintiffs as incendiary. The evidence on the cause and author of the fire was vague and doubtful. The mere fact that the plaintiffs had the keys to the locked building was insufficient to attribute incendiary intervention to them.
3. Yes, the claim was fraudulent. The evidence showed a vast discrepancy between the amount and type of goods claimed to be in the building and the remnants found after the fire. Only about ten or eleven partly burned cases were found, with no trace of the destruction of the approximately forty cases claimed. This discrepancy indicated a deliberate intent to claim indemnity for non-existent goods, constituting a fraudulent claim under the insurance policies, which exempts the insurers from liability.
The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s judgment and ABSOLVED the defendant insurance companies from the complaint.
AI Generated by Armztrong.