# 70

Dioscoro C. Ty v First National Surety & Assurance Co., Inc.

G.R. No. L-16138 April 29, 1961
Facts:
Ty, a mechanic foreman in Caloocan, bought 18 availed an insurance policies at 8 pesos each. A fire broke out, and Ty
fought his way out of the factory. His hand was broken by a heavy object in the process. His injuries
caused temporary total disability on his left hand. He wanted to claim an indemnity valuing 650 pesos for the loss
of hand by means of amputation even if he only suffered from broken fingers. The insurance companies sued him in court
and they won. Ty then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Can he collect the sums even if there was no amputation?
Held: No. The Plaintiff cannot go beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all of which define
partial disability as loss of either hand by amputation through the bones of the wrist.
Note that the disability of plaintiff's hand was merely temporary, having been caused by fracture of the index, the middle
and the fourth fingers of the left hand agreement contained in the insurance policies is the law between the parties.
The insurance policies clearly define loss of hand as amputation of the bones on the wrist. The injury was only a
temporary total disability of plaintiff's left hand." This wasnt covered by the policies.
#69
Ulpiano Santa Ana vs. Commercial Union Assurance Company, et al.,
GR. NO. L- 32889 November 20, 1930
Facts:
In 1923, Sta. Ana built his house in Pasig and insured it against fire for (1) P3, 000 to Phoenix Assurance Company and
(2) P6, 000 to Guardian Assurance limited, for a period of one year.
In 1925, Santa Ana mortgaged this house to Garcia for P5, 000, for a "period of two years, the contract being drawn up as
a retro sale for the sum of P5, 000. The 2 policies were endorsed to Garcia. In December 1925, Santa Ana reinsured said
house with the defendant companies, the Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company of New York, and the Commercial
Union Assurance Company Limited London, through their common agent duly authorized to represent them in the
Philippine Islands, the Pacific Commercial Company which was to be effective for one year.On September 20, 1926,
Santa Ana lookout another insurance policy on the house in question for P6,00 in the Filipinas Campania de Segurros,
which issued the one year policy upon receiving from Sta. Ana premium thereon. Twelve hours before the expiration of the
policies issued by the Phoenix Assurance Company and the Guardian Assurance Company, Limited for P3, 000 and P6,
000 respectively, the entire house was burned. Santa Ana gave notice in due time of the loss to each and every one of the
companies in which he had insured the house and demanded payment of the respective policies. The insurance
companies refused payment on the ground that claim of 21,000 filed by him was fraudulent, being in excess of real value
of the insured property; that none said companies had been informed of the existence of the other policies in the other
companies, and that the fire was intentional.
Issue: Can the insured Santa Ana claim against the insurance companies?
Held: No. without arguing the issue of whether or not other insurance upon the same property must be given in writing or
whether a verbal notice is sufficient to render an issuance valid which requires such notice, whether oral or written, the SC
held that in the absolute absence of such notice when it one of the conditions specified in the fire insurance policy, the
policy is null and void, plaintiff cannot recover from the defendants insurance companies. The Supreme Court upheld the
finding of the trial court that the policies provide that no other insurance should be admitted upon the property thereby
assured without the consent of said companies.