G.R. No. 85141 – FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CHOA TIEK SENG, respondents.
REGALADO, J.
Rule Synopsis
In an “all risks” policy, the insurer has the burden of proof of showing that the cause of loss is exempted from the coverage. The insured is not bound to show the precise cause of loss.
Facts
Choa Tiek Seng (consignee) insured a shipment of fishmeals it ordered from Bangkok, Thailand with Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. (insurer). The policy was an insurance against “all risks.” The goods, however, arrived in bad condition. The consignee thus, filed a claim against the insurer but the latter refused to pay on the ground that: under an “all risks” marine policy, before a claim can be compensable, there must be “some fortuity,” “casualty” or “accidental cause” to which the alleged loss is attributable. And that the consignee’s failure to adduce evidence that the loss was due to a fortuitous event exempts it from liability.
Issue
Should Filipino Merchants Co., Inc. be held liable?
Ruling and Discussion
Yes. Filipino Merchants Co., Inc. should be held liable.
The Supreme Court found the insurer liable, it held that under an “all risks” policy, the insured is not bound to prove the precise cause of loss or damage for which it seeks compensation. Rather, the burden is with the insurer to show the exception to the coverage. Under this type of policy, the SC said that the insured only needs to prove the fact of loss, destruction, or deterioration. Thereafter, the burden is shifted to the insurer to prove that the loss was due to excepted perils. In this case, the insurer failed to show that the loss was caused by any of the excepted perils; it was thus liable.
Dispositive
Petition denied. Decision affirmed.