Galian vs. State Assurance Company, Ltd. February 10, 1915| Trent, J. | Opinion Rule PETITIONER: Francisco Galian RESPONDENT: State Assurance Company, Ltd. SUMMARY: Galian claimed proceeds from an open fire insurance policy. The insurance company wanted to give him a lower amount. In determining the amount to be given, the insurance company used the testimonies of three experts. SC declared that the testimonies of the experts were superficial, and there was no need for expert witnesses anymore as the articles listed were normally used by people for their own convenience, and the prices are readily available in retail stores. DOCTRINE: Section 49 of Rule 130 provides that expert witnesses may be admitted on matters requiring special knowledge. In this case, no special knowledge was needed because the prices of articles sought to be apprised can be seen in retail stores, and it is most probable that Galian himself bought them for his own convenience and comfort. Thus, Galian is knowledgeable about the prices of said items. FACTS: nothing had been entirely consumed by the fire. 1. January 25, 1912: The property was insured for P3,000. 2. May 25, 191: The day following the fire, the insured presented an itemized statement of the goods contained in the house at the time of the fire, the total value of which he claims to be P4,512. The insured property was not totally destroyed, so the insured claimed only P2,919.74. 3. The insurance company interposed the defense that the policy had been forfeited because Galian presented false claims — that there was an alleged total loss, that not all the articles listed in the claim of loss were in the house where and when the fire occurred, and that that he attributed greater value to the articles than they were worth. 4. Upon trial, there was evidence for Galian that the statement presented after the fire was substantially correct, both in quantities and values. He testified that he, with the assistance of his brother, immediately prepared the statement from memory immediately after the fire. 5. The company presented 3 witnesses who were at the scene of the fire shortly after it occurred. From the photographs submitted, it appears that the first floor of Galian’s resident was not damaged by the fire at all, but did suffer damage from water and breakage. The rattan work on the chairs, in the second floor, was entirely consumed. The woodwork was probably only charred or scorched. The fire did the most damage in the bedroom, where the roof partly fell in. - Mr. Young testified that he examined the contents of the house and estimated the loss at P1,000, but this was only a casual estimate. - Mr. Dow testified that he made a rough estimate, that that the estimated value of the goods in the first floor was P500, and from the upper floor, P1,500. - Mr. Laing, agent of the insurance company, estimated the loss at P1,500. He testified that
6. TC refused to consider the testimonies of Galian and his brother as to the value of the property on the ground that neither was qualified to appraise the property. The court determined that the property was worth P1,000 at the time of the fire. ISSUE: W/N the trial court correctly determined the value of the property – NO. HELD: Galian is entitled to the sum of P2,919.92. RATIO: 1. There is no satisfactory proof that Galian included in his itemized list any property which was not there. He prepared the list from memory, and absolute accuracy could hardly be expected. 2. The insurance company’s counsel was correct in observing that the Galian’s inventory of his and his wife’s wardrobe is too extravagant , considering that Galian is only a cashier of a local business house with a salary of P175 per month. It also appears that the extraordinary list of wearing apparel was submitted to the insurance company before any of the three experts made his examination on the property. 3. The Court declined to accept the testimonies of the three witnesses for the insurance company. - Because it appears that some of the plaintiff’s property was entirely consumed by the fire and some was badly damaged that it was impossible to judge of its value. - The inspection made by these several witnesses was so superficial, in view of their opportunity, that their conclusions do not carry conviction. 4. The Court also declined to agree with the trial court’s finding that Galian and his brother were not qualified to appraise the value of the property. The itemized articles are on sale in retail shops everywhere and the prices are readily available to anyone seeking the information.
Moreover, these are things that people with reasonably fair income purchase for their own convenience and comfort. Hence, information as to their value must necessarily be acquired by all such individuals. Therefore, there was no need for an expert witness. 5. Galian was intimately acquainted with the articles described by him. He, no doubt, purchased most of them. 6. The property was worth P4,512. The salvage amounted to P120.40. This leaves a partial loss amounting to P4,391.60. As the property was insured for only P3,000, the insurer must bear a portion of the loss represented by a fraction the numerator of which is the amount of the insurance and the denominator of which is the value of the property at the time of the fire. This entitles the insured to a judgment against the insurer for 2,919.92. SEPARATE OPINION Moreland, J. 1. The insurance policy is clear that the company agreed to pay Galian an amount not exceeding P3,000. Clause 17 of the policy, however, states that if the total amount of the damages exceeds P3,000, the excess will be borne by the insured. 2. Justice Moreland finds that, even though there is no categorical pronouncement yet as to the validity of such clause, such clause is violative of the fair intent of the agreement, and can naturally deceive the insured in the majority of cases. Johnson, J, dissenting. (No explanation)
