Gen. Insurance & Surety Corp v.

NG Hua coverage extended only to the oil mill under Building

Facts:
In 1952, General Insurance issued a fire policy to Ng
Hua to cover the contents of the Central Pomade
Factory owned by him.There was a provision in the
policy that should there be any insurance already
effected or to be subsequently procured, the insured
shall give notice to the insurer. Ng Hua declared that
there was non. The very next day, the building and
the goods stored therein burned. Subsequently, the
claim of Ng Hua for the proceeds was denied by
General since it discovered that Ng Hua had obtained
an insurance from General Indemnity for the same
goods and for the same period of time.
Issue:
W/N there was misrepresentation by Ng Hua.
Ruling:
No. 5.
ISSUE:
W/N the new oil mill is covered by the fire insurance
policy
HELD:
Yes.
In construing the words used descriptive of a building
insured, the greatest liberality is shown by the courts
in giving effect to the insurance. In view of the custom
of insurance agents to examine buildings before
writing policies upon them, and since a mistake as to
the identity and character of the building is extremely
unlikely, the courts are inclined to consider the policy
of insurance covers any building which the parties
manifestly intended to insure, however inaccurate the
description may be.

Yes. Notwithstanding, therefore, the misdescription in the

The annotation must be deemed to be a warranty that
the property was not insured by any other policy.
Violation thereof entitles the insurer to rescind. Such
misrepresentation is fatal. The materiality of non-
disclosure of other insurance policies is not open to
doubt.
policy, it is beyond dispute, to our mind, that what the
parties manifestly intended to insure was the new oil
mill. If the parties really intended to protect the first
oil mill, then there is no need to specify it as new.
Indeed, it would be absurd to assume that the
respondent would protect its first oil mill for different
amounts and leave uncovered its second one.

Furthermore, even if the annotations were

overlooked, the insurer would still be free from
liability because there is no question that the policy
issued by General Indemnity had not been stated in
nor endorsed on Policy No. 471 of defendant. And as
stipulated in the above-quoted provisions of such
policy "all benefit under this policy shall be forfeited."

American Home Assurance v. Tantuco

FACTS:

Tantuco Enterprises, Inc. is a coconut oil milling and

refining company. It owned two mills (the first oil mill
and a new one). The two oil mills are separately
covered by fire insurance policies issued by American
Home Assurance Co. On Sept. 30, 1991, a fire broke
out and gutted and consumed the new oil mill.
American Home rejected the claim for the insurance
proceeds on the ground that no policy was issued by it
covering the burned oil mill. It stated that the new oil
mill was under Building No. 15 while the insurance