Abhfbiufbubacbi uadjkbc Harding v.

Commercial Union Assurance Company- Willful

Misstatement
38 PHIL 464
Facts:

> Henry Harding bought a car for 2T in 1915. He then gave the car to his wife Mrs.
Harding.

> While Mrs. Harding was having the car repaired at the Luneta Garage (Luneta was
an agent of Smith Bell and Co., which in turn is Commercial Union’s agent), the latter
induced Mrs. Harding to insure the care with Commercial.

> Mrs. Harding agreed, and Smith Bell sent an agent to Luneta Garage, who together
with the manager of LUneta, appraised the car and declared that its present value was
P3T. This amt was written in the proposal form which Mrs. Harding signed.

> Subsequently, the car was damaged by fire. Commercial refused to pay because the
car’s present value was only 2.8T and not 3T.

Issue:

Whether or not Commercial is liable.

Held:

Commercial is liable.

Where it appears that the proposal form, while signed by the insured was made out by
the person authorized to solicit the insurance (Luneta and Smith Bell) the facts stated in
the proposal, even if incorrect, will not be regarded as warranted by the insured, in the
absence of willful misstatement. Under such circumstances, the proposal is to be
regarded as the act of the insurer.