Eagle Star V Chia Yu

EAGLE STAR INS. CO. v.
CHIA YU
G.R. No. L-5915 Date: March 31, 1955 petitioners EAGLE STAR INS. CO. (insurer) , KURR STEAMSHIP CO., INC. (insurers agent) , ROOSEVELT STEAMSHIP AGENCY, INC. (carrier) , and LEIF HOEGH & COMPANY, A/S respondents Eagle Star v. Chia Yu Facts: 1. Atkin Kroll & Co. loaded on the S. S. Roeph Silverlight (owned and operated by Leigh Hoegh & Co., A/S, of San Francisco California,) 14 bales of assorted underwear valued at P8,085.23. 2. The underwear was consigned to Chia Yu in the City of Manila 3. Insurance: a. Insured against all risks by Eagle Star Ins. Co. of SF, California b. Policy obtained by shipper and then assigned to consignee 4. Upon discharge of the goods in Manila, out of the 14 bales only 10 were delivered to him as the remaining 3 could not be found. The 10 bales were also found to be damaged to the extent of 50%. 5. Chia Yu made a claim. -> Refused by carrier and then insurer. 6. Chia Yu commenced an action in the CFI-Manila on November 16, 1948, or more than two years after delivery of the damaged bales and the date when the missing bales should have been delivered a. Defense: Prescription 7. Trial court: For Chia Yu Issue: 1. WON Chia Yu's action has prescribed a. Against the carrier? YES, Prescribed. b. Against the insurer? NO, Not prescribed. Ratio: 1. On the part of the carrier a. Stipulation in the bill of lading: In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. b. SC: "we have to hold that plaintiff's failure to bring his action "within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered" discharged the carrier from all liability. This dispenses with the necessity of deciding how much could be recovered from the carrier under the terms of the bill of lading." 2. On the part of the insurer - The case for the insurer stands on a different footing, for its claim of prescription is founded upon the terms of the policy and not upon the bill of lading. Under our law the time limit for bringing a civil action upon a written contract is ten years after the right of action accrues. a. Defense: Stipulated in the policy that "No suit action on this Policy, for the recovery of any claim, shall be sustainable in any Court of law or equity unless the insured shall have fully complied with all the terms and conditions of this Policy nor unless commenced with twelve (12) months next after the happening of the loss ." b. SC ruling: i. Insurance Code, SEC. 61-A. Any condition, stipulation or agreement in any policy of insurance, limiting the time for commencing an action thereunder to a period of less than one year from the time when the cause of action accrues, is void. CHIA YU (consignee)
ii.
iii.
Examining the policy sued upon in the present case, we find that its prescriptive clause, if given effect in accordance with the terms of the policy, would reduce the period allowed the insured for bringing his action to less than one year. 1. Said clause makes the prescriptive period begin from the happening of the loss and at the same time provides that the no suit on the policy shall be sustainable in any court unless the insured shall have first fully complied with all the terms and conditions of the policy, among them that which requires that, as so as the loss is determined, written claim therefor be filed with the carrier and that the letter to the carrier and the latter's reply should be attached to the claim papers to be sent to the insurer. 2. It is obvious that compliance with this condition precedent will necessarily consume time and thus shorten the period for bringing suit to less than one year if the period is to begin, as stated in the policy, from "the happening of the loss." 3. Being contrary to the law of the forum, such stipulation cannot be given effect. Looking at it from the view of harmonizing the stipulation with what is provided in the law, a proper construction would be to take the 12 months as the period for bringing the suit after the cause of action accrues. 1. With this construction, when did the cause of action accrue? 2. Plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue until his claim was finally rejected by the insurance company. This is because, before such final rejection, there was no real necessity for bringing suit. 3. Chia Yu's claim was finally rejected on 22nd April 1948 -> Having been filed within twelve months form that date, the action cannot be deemed to have prescribed even on the supposition that the period given the insured for bringing suit under the prescriptive clause of the policy is twelve months after the accrual of the cause of action.
Judgment appealed is reversed with respect to the carrier and agents but affirmed with respect to insurer and its agents.

Eagle Star V Chia Yu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eagle Star V Chia Yu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eagle Star V Chia Yu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EAGLE STAR INS. CO. v.

You might also like