Title
Jarque vs. Smith, Bell and Co., Ltd.
Case
G.R. No. 32986
Decision Date
Nov 11, 1930
Insurer liable for general average despite policy limiting liability to "absolute total loss of vessel only," per Code of Commerce.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 32986)

Factual Background

Francisco Jarque owned the motorboat Pandan and held a marine insurance policy with National Union for the amount of P45,000. According to the rider attached to the policy, the insurance coverage was specifically for "absolute total loss of the vessel only." On October 31, 1928, while navigating rough seas near Ticlin Island, Jarque had to jettison part of the boat's cargo to protect the vessel. This action incurred a contribution of P2,610.86, which National Union refused to cover, stating that its liability was confined to an absolute total loss of the vessel and proportionate salvage charges.

Court Proceedings

Jarque initiated legal proceedings to compel National Union to pay the amount owed due to the general average caused by the jettison of the cargo. The lower court ruled in favor of Jarque, ordering National Union to pay the specified amount. National Union subsequently appealed, alleging two primary errors: that the lower court disregarded the limiting terms of the insurance policy and incorrectly concluded that National Union was liable for the general average.

Analysis of the First Assignment of Error

In assessing the first assignment of error, the court noted that the insurance contract was largely written in standard English marine policy form. The policy contained both printed and typewritten elements, with the latter expressing the limitation of coverage to "absolute total loss of the vessel only, and to pay proportionate salvage charges." Legal precedent establishes that in cases of conflict between written and printed terms, the written portion prevails. Thus, the typewritten rider, which clearly restricted National Union's liability, should control the interpretation of the policy.

Analysis of General Average Liability

Despite the limitations stated in the policy, the court observed that Article 859 of the Code of Commerce remains applicable, which mandates underwriters to contribute to gross average damages. The court reasoned that the obligation to contribute arises not solely from the terms of the policy but from the underlying relationship among the parties, generating an implied quasi contract by law. The court emphasized that this article is mandatory and obligates all relevant underwriters to contribute to general average payment.

Rationale for Liability under General Average

The court underscored that the circumstances of the jettison demonstrate both the ship's peril and the necessity of such action. Therefore, the insurance company benefits from the jettison, as it avoids a more extensive loss of the vessel in case of foundering. As such, the court concluded that the insurer should be bound by the same obligations as other parties with vested interests when a situation of general average arises. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Jarque, asserting that the assessment against National Union was justifiable.

Dissenting Opinion

Justices Johnson and Street dissented from the majority opinion. They contended that the explicit wording of the insurance policy—which limited

...continue reading

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.