Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    C.iii. Lampano v. Jose

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    Barretto constructed a house for Jose, who then sold it to Lampano. The house was later destroyed by fire while Lampano still owed Jose money. Barretto had taken out an insurance policy on the house in his own name, with Jose's consent, and collected money from the insurance company after the fire. Lampano sued Barretto and Jose, alleging Jose had said the insurance policy would be delivered to her. The court ruled that Barretto had an insurable interest in the house since he constructed it, so he could insure it for his own protection. As the policy was in Barretto's name alone, it was a personal contract between him and the insurance company, not one that transferred

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    C.iii. Lampano v. Jose

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    103 views2 pages
    Barretto constructed a house for Jose, who then sold it to Lampano. The house was later destroyed by fire while Lampano still owed Jose money. Barretto had taken out an insurance policy on the house in his own name, with Jose's consent, and collected money from the insurance company after the fire. Lampano sued Barretto and Jose, alleging Jose had said the insurance policy would be delivered to her. The court ruled that Barretto had an insurable interest in the house since he constructed it, so he could insure it for his own protection. As the policy was in Barretto's name alone, it was a personal contract between him and the insurance company, not one that transferred

    Original Description:

    c.iii. Lampano v. Jose

    Original Title

    c.iii. Lampano v. Jose

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Barretto constructed a house for Jose, who then sold it to Lampano. The house was later destroyed by fire while Lampano still owed Jose money. Barretto had taken out an insurance policy on the house in his own name, with Jose's consent, and collected money from the insurance company after the fire. Lampano sued Barretto and Jose, alleging Jose had said the insurance policy would be delivered to her. The court ruled that Barretto had an insurable interest in the house since he constructed it, so he could insure it for his own protection. As the policy was in Barretto's name alone, it was a personal contract between him and the insurance company, not one that transferred

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views2 pages

    C.iii. Lampano v. Jose

    Uploaded by

    Charmila Siplon
    Barretto constructed a house for Jose, who then sold it to Lampano. The house was later destroyed by fire while Lampano still owed Jose money. Barretto had taken out an insurance policy on the house in his own name, with Jose's consent, and collected money from the insurance company after the fire. Lampano sued Barretto and Jose, alleging Jose had said the insurance policy would be delivered to her. The court ruled that Barretto had an insurable interest in the house since he constructed it, so he could insure it for his own protection. As the policy was in Barretto's name alone, it was a personal contract between him and the insurance company, not one that transferred

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Lampano v.

    Jose
    FACTS:
    Mariano R. Barretto, constructed a house for Placida A. Jose sold the house to Antonina
    Lampano for P6,000
    The house was destroyed by fire during which Lampano still owed Jose P2,000 as
    evidenced by a promissory note. Jose also owed Barretto P2,000 for the construction.
    After the completion of the house and before it was destroyed, Mariano R. Barretto took
    out an insurance policy upon it in his own name, with the consent of Placida A. Jose, for
    the sum of P4,000. After its destruction, he collected P3,600 from the insurance
    company, having paid in premiums the sum of P301.50
    Lampano filed a complaint against Barreto and Jose alleging that Jose in a verbal
    agreement told her that the policy will be delivered to her so she should collected
    P3,600 from each of them
    RTC: favored Jose ordering Barreto to pay him P1,298.50 and offsetting the P2,000
    Barreto alone appealed
    ISSUE: W/N Barreto had insurable interest in the house and could insure it for his it for
    his own protection
    HELD: YES.
    If Barretto had an insurable interest in the house, he could insure this interest for his
    sole protection. The policy was in the name of Barretto alone. It was, therefore, a
    personal contract between him and the company and not a contract which ran with the
    property. According to this personal contract the insurance policy was payable to the
    insured without regard to the nature and extent of his interest in the property, provided
    that he had, as we have said, an insurable interest at the time of the making of the
    contract, and also at the time of the fire. Where different persons have different
    interests in the same property, the insurance taken by one in his own right and in his
    own interest does not in any way insure to the benefit of another. This is the general
    rule prevailing in the United States and we find nothing different in this jurisdiction.
    A contract of insurance made for the insurer's (insured) indemnity only, as where there
    is no agreement, express or implied, that it shall be for the benefit of a third person,
    does not attach to or run with the title to the insured property on a transfer thereof
    personal as between the insurer and the insured. In such case strangers to the contract
    cannot require in their own right any interest in the insurance money, except through
    an assignment or some contract with which they are connected.
    In the case at bar Barretto assumed the responsibility for the insurance. The premiums,
    as we have indicated, were paid by him without any agreement or right to recoup the
    amount paid therefor should no loss result to the property. It would not, therefore, be
    in accordance with t he law and his contractual obligations to compel him to account for
    the insurance money, or any par thereof, to the plaintiff, who assumed no risk
    whatever.

    You might also like