Lopez stored copra in a warehouse owned by Del Rosario. Del Rosario issued warehouse receipts to Lopez and another party. The warehouse receipts stated the goods would be insured. Del Rosario insured the warehouse and its contents. A fire destroyed the warehouse and contents. Lopez claimed the value of his copra from Del Rosario. The court ruled that Del Rosario acted as Lopez's agent in insuring the contents and was liable to pay Lopez for the amount claimed, as warehousemen who insure both their own goods and goods stored with them are obligated to proportionally benefit the owners of stored goods in the event of a loss.
Lopez stored copra in a warehouse owned by Del Rosario. Del Rosario issued warehouse receipts to Lopez and another party. The warehouse receipts stated the goods would be insured. Del Rosario insured the warehouse and its contents. A fire destroyed the warehouse and contents. Lopez claimed the value of his copra from Del Rosario. The court ruled that Del Rosario acted as Lopez's agent in insuring the contents and was liable to pay Lopez for the amount claimed, as warehousemen who insure both their own goods and goods stored with them are obligated to proportionally benefit the owners of stored goods in the event of a loss.
Lopez stored copra in a warehouse owned by Del Rosario. Del Rosario issued warehouse receipts to Lopez and another party. The warehouse receipts stated the goods would be insured. Del Rosario insured the warehouse and its contents. A fire destroyed the warehouse and contents. Lopez claimed the value of his copra from Del Rosario. The court ruled that Del Rosario acted as Lopez's agent in insuring the contents and was liable to pay Lopez for the amount claimed, as warehousemen who insure both their own goods and goods stored with them are obligated to proportionally benefit the owners of stored goods in the event of a loss.
Lopez stored copra in a warehouse owned by Del Rosario. Del Rosario issued warehouse receipts to Lopez and another party. The warehouse receipts stated the goods would be insured. Del Rosario insured the warehouse and its contents. A fire destroyed the warehouse and contents. Lopez claimed the value of his copra from Del Rosario. The court ruled that Del Rosario acted as Lopez's agent in insuring the contents and was liable to pay Lopez for the amount claimed, as warehousemen who insure both their own goods and goods stored with them are obligated to proportionally benefit the owners of stored goods in the event of a loss.
GR NO. L-19189 November 27, 1922 En Banc J. Malcolm
Facts:
Del Rosario is the owner of a warehouse where the copras of Lopez were deposited. Del Rosario issued warehouse receipts in the name of Lopez and a certain Zamora. One of the conditions of the warehouse receipt provides that the goods will be insured. Del Rosario secured insurance on the warehouse and its contents.
The warehouse and its contents were destroyed by fire. The warehouse was a total loss.
Lopez is now claiming for the value of his copras deposited in Del Rosarios warehouse. Del Rosario failed to settle the amount claimed by Lopez.
Issue:
WON Del Rosario acted as agent of Lopez in taking out insurance on the contents of the warehouse and is liable for the amount claimed by Lopez.
Ruling:
Yes, Del Rosario acted as agent and is liable for the amount claimed by Lopez.
x x x The law is that a policy effected by bailee and covering by its terms his own property and property held in trust; insures, in the event of loss, equally and proportionately to the benefit of all the owners of the property insured. Even if one secured insurance covering his own goods and goods stored with him, and even if the owner of the stored goods did not request or know of the insurance, and did not ratify it before the payment of the loss yet it has been held by a reputable court that the warehouseman is liable to the owner of such stored goods for his share.