Title
Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Co.
Case
G.R. No. 9370
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1915
Plaintiff stored fireworks in insured bodega, violating policy terms. Fire occurred, but fireworks didn’t cause damage. Court ruled insurer not liable due to policy breach.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 9370)

Facts:

K. S. Young v. The Midland Textile Insurance Company, G.R. No. 9370, March 31, 1915, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court (30 Phil. 617).

The plaintiff-appellee, K. S. Young, operated a candy and fruit store on the Escolta and occupied a building at 321 Calle Claveria as a residence and bodega. On May 29, 1912 the defendant-appellant, The Midland Textile Insurance Company, issued policy No. 509105 for P3,000 covering the residence, bodega and contents against fire, in consideration of a P60 premium. The policy contained a written condition labelled “Warranty B”: that during the pendency of the policy “no hazardous goods be stored or kept for sale, and no hazardous trade or process be carried on, in the building to which this insurance applies, or in any building connected therewith.”

In early February 1913 (the 4th or 5th) Young placed three boxes (each about 18 × 18 × 20 inches) of fireworks — admitted by both parties to be “hazardous goods” — in the bodega. The fireworks had been given to Young by the former owner of the Luneta Candy Store; Young intended to use them for Chinese New Year festivities but, after municipal authorities prohibited their use, he kept them in the bodega “for future use” or safekeeping. On March 18, 1913 the building and contents were partially destroyed by fire. The fireworks were found in a part of the building not destroyed and did not contribute to or cause the fire.

At trial the lower court rendered judgment for Young for P2,708.78 and costs. The defendant appealed from that judgment to the Supreme Court, presenting the single controversy w...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did the placement of the fireworks in the insured building constitute “storage” within the meaning of Warranty B of the policy?
  • If so, does that breach of warranty relieve the insurer of liability even though the hazardous goods did not contribute to t...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.