HARDING V. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE II.

ISSUES
COMPANY (1918)
W/N Commercial should pay the stipulated
Type of Insurance: Fire Insurance policy insured value of 3,000. YES
Date of Fire: March 24, 1916
III. RATIO
I.FACTS
o Having agreed that the automobile was
o February 16, 1916 - Mrs. Henry E. worth 3,000 pesos after the information
Harding was the owner of a Stude- provided by Harding and after
baker automobile, given to her by her examinations by Commercial’s agents
husband, Mr. Harding that the present value is at 3,000,
o With the consent of her husband, Mrs. Commercial is now bound by the
Harding insured said car with valuation, in the absence of fraud on
Commercial Union (Commercial). The the part of the insured. All statements
proposal was filled out by Commercial’s of value, to an extent, are matters of
agent and signed by Mrs. Harding. opinion. The validity of all valued
Under the proposal’s heading ‘Price policies does not entirely depend on the
paid by proposer’ for the automobile absolute correctness of the estimated
(proposer is Harding) is the amount of value.
3,500 Pesos and under the ‘Present o Evidence shows that there was no bad
value’ is 3,000 Pesos. faith on the part of Mrs. Harding in
o After the proposal was made, a declaring the ‘Price paid by proposer’ at
representative of Commercial examined 3,500 and the present value at 3,000.
the automobile in the Luneta Garage She merely repeated the information
and the General Manager/Expert given to her by her husband. Even the
Mechanic of the said garage testified inspection of the automobile by
that the automobile was worth 3,000 Commercial’s agents, before signing the
pesos and thereafter Commercial issued proposal, affirmed the value at 3,000.
the policy of fire insurance worth 3,000.
o March 24 1916 – a fire destroyed the
car. Mrs. Harding then filed for a claim
but Commercial refused on the ground
that there were misrepresentations
made by the Hardings in their
statement of the value of the
automobile. They also claimed that Mrs.
Harding had no insurable interest in the
car because she was not the owner of
the car but actually her husband.
o Trial Court found no proof of fraud
when Mrs. Harding declared the value
of the automobile was at 3,500. Having
agreed to the estimated value of 3,000
and having insured the automobile for
that amount, Commercial is bound to
pay.