G.R. No.

L-5715 December 20, 1910

E. M. BACHRACH, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BRITISH AMERICAN ASSURANCE CM!AN", # cor$or#%&o', defendant-appellant.
(ACTS)
1. E. M. B#c*r#c* &'+,re- .oo-+ be/o'.&'. %o # .e'er#/ 0,r'&%,re +%ore, such as iron
and brass bedsteads, toilet tables, chairs, ice boxes, bureaus, washstands, mirrors, and
sea-grass furniture stored in the ground floor and first story of house and dwelling, 1&%*
#' #,%*or&2e- #.e'% o0 %*e Br&%&+* Amer&c#' A++,r#'ce Com$#'3, 0or %*e #mo,'%
o0 104.
2. The policy also covered a "Calalac" automobile to the extent of P1,!".
5. #ritish $merican $ssurance Company denied the liability, alleging that%
o (&r+%. That the plaintiff maintained a paint and varnish shop in the said building
where the goods which were insured were stored.
o Seco'-. That the plaintiff transferred his interest in and to the property covered
by the policy to &. '. Peabody ( Co. to secure certain indebtedness due and
owing to said company, and also that the plaintiff had transferred his interest in
certain of the goods covered by the said policy to one )ac*e, to secure certain
obligations assumed by the said )ac*e for and on behalf of the insured.
T*#% %*e +#'c%&o' 6#$$ro7#/8 o0 %*e +#&- -e0e'-#'% *#- 'o% bee'
ob%#&'e- b3 %*e $/#&'%&00, #+ re9,&re- b3 %*e +#&- $o/&c3.
o T*&r-. That the plaintiff, on the 1+th of $pril, 1,"+, and immediately preceding
the outbrea* of the alleged fire, 1&/0,//3 $/#ce- # .#+o/&'e c#' co'%#&'&'. 10
.#//o'+ o0 .#+o/&'e in the upper story of said building in close proximity to a
portion of said goods, wares, and merchandise, which can was so placed by the
plaintiff as to permit the gasoline to run on the floor of said second story, #'-
#0%er +o $/#c&'. +#&- .#+o/&'e, he, the plaintiff, $/#ce- &' c/o+e $ro:&m&%3 %o
+#&- e+c#$&'. .#+o/&'e # /&.*%e- /#m$ co'%#&'&'. #/co*o/, thereby greatly
increasing the ris* of fire.
o (o,r%*. That the plaintiff m#-e 'o $roo0 o0 %*e /o++ 1&%*&' %*e %&me re9,&re-
b3 co'-&%&o' 0&7e o0 +#&- $o/&c3, nor did the insured file a statement with the
municipal or any other -udge or court of the goods alleged to have been in said
building at the time of the alleged fire, nor of the goods saved, nor the loss
suffered.
;. The plaintiff, after denying nearly all of the facts set out in the special answer of the
defendant, alleged%
o (&r+%. That he had been ac.uitted in a criminal action against him, after a trial
duly and regularly had, upon a charge of arson, based upon the same alleged
facts set out in the answer of the defendant.
o Seco'-. That he had made no proof of the loss set up in his complaint for the
reason that immediately after he had, on the "th of $pril, 1,"+, given the
defendant due notice in writing of said loss, %*e -e0e'-#'%, on the 1st of $pril,
1,"+, and thereafter on other occasions, *#- 1#&7e- #// r&.*% %o re9,&re $roo0
o0 +#&- /o++ b3 -e'3&'. #// /&#b&/&%3 ,'-er %*e $o/&c3 #'- b3 -ec/#r&'. +#&-
$o/&c3 %o be ',// #'- 7o&-.
5. The lower court found that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff and rendered a
-udgment against the defendant for the sum of P,,+/1.!", with interest for a period of
one year at 0 per cent, ma*ing a total of P1",/11.,,, with costs.
ISSUE)
Can #achrach claim against the insurance company2
HELD)
"ES. The lower court3s decision is affirmed
1. The *eeping of inflammable oils on the premises, though prohibited by the policy, does
not void it if such *eeping is incidental to the business 4furniture store *asi *aya
*ailangan ang paints, varnish and other oils5.
. 6t may be added that there was no provision in the policy prohibiting the *eeping of
paints and varnishes upon the premises where the insured property was stored.
o 6f the company intended to rely upon a condition of that character, it ought to
have been plainly expressed in the policy.
1. I% &+ c/#&me- %*#% %*e e:ec,%&o' o0 # c*#%%e/ mor%.#.e o' %*e &'+,re- $ro$er%3 b3
BACHRACH %o H. <. !e#bo-3 = Co. 1&%*o,% $erm&++&o' o0 %*e &'+,r#'ce com$#'3
7&o/#%e- 1*#% &+ >'o1' #+ %*e ?#/&e'#%&o' c/#,+e@ -7 forfeiture if the interest in the
property pass from the insured to another person.
o T*ere &+ 'o $ro7&+&o' &' +#&- $o/&c3 $ro*&b&%&'. %*e $/#&'%&00 0rom $/#c&'. #
mor%.#.e ,$o' %*e $ro$er%3 &'+,re-.
o A-m&%%&'. %*#% +,c* # $ro7&+&o' 1#+ &'%e'-e-, &% &+ *e/- b3 %*e .re#% 1e&.*%
o0 #,%*or&%3 %*#% %*e &'%ere+% &' $ro$er%3 &'+,re- -oe+ 'o% $#++ b3 %*e mere
e:ec,%&o' o0 # c*#%%e/ mor%.#.e #'- %*#% 1*&/e # c*#%%e/ mor%.#.e &+ #
co'-&%&o'#/ +#/e, %*ere &+ 'o #/&e'#%&o' 1&%*&' %*e me#'&'. o0 %*e &'+,r#'ce
/#1 ,'%&/ %*e mor%.#.e #c9,&re+ # r&.*% %o %#>e $o++e++&o' b3 -e0#,/% ,'-er
%*e %erm+ o0 %*e mor%.#.e.
o No +,c* r&.*% &+ c/#&me- %o *#7e #ccr,e- &' %*e c#+e #% b#r, #'- %*e
#/&e'#%&o' c/#,+e &+ %*ere0ore &'#$$/&c#b/e.
/. 'e cannot find that there is a preponderance of evidence showing that the plaintiff did
actually set fire or cause fire to be set to the goods in .uestion.
o Plaintiff was ac.uitted of the crime of arson.
!. 6t does not positively appear of record that the automobile in .uestion was not included
in the other policies.
o 6t does appear that the automobile was saved and was considered as a part of
the salvaged.
o 6t is alleged that the salvage amounted to P/,""", including the automobile.
o This amount 4P/,"""5 was distributed among the different insurers and the
amount of their responsibility was proportionately reduced.
o The defendant and appellant in the present case made no ob-ection at any time
in the lower court to that distribution of the salvage.
o The claim is now made for the first time.