Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • St. Paul Fire & Marine v. Macondray, 70 SCRA 122 (1976) Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pau Licaycay
    114 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case from 1976 regarding an insurance claim. It describes how a shipment was damaged during transport from the US to the Philippines. The insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine, paid the claim to the consignee and then sought to recover costs from the carrier and port service. The lower court ordered payment, but the defendants appealed, arguing their liability was limited. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that as the insurer, St. Paul could only recover what the consignee was entitled to under the bill of lading, which limited liability.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    13.St._Paul_Fire__Marine_v._Macondray_70_SCRA_122_1976

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes a court case from 1976 regarding an insurance claim. It describes how a shipment was damaged during transport from the US to the Philippines. The insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine, paid the claim to the consignee and then sought to recover costs from the carrier and port service. The lower court ordered payment, but the defendants appealed, arguing their liability was limited. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that as the insurer, St. Paul could only recover what the consignee was entitled to under the bill of lading, which limited liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    114 views2 pages

    St. Paul Fire & Marine v. Macondray, 70 SCRA 122 (1976) Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pau Licaycay
    The document summarizes a court case from 1976 regarding an insurance claim. It describes how a shipment was damaged during transport from the US to the Philippines. The insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine, paid the claim to the consignee and then sought to recover costs from the carrier and port service. The lower court ordered payment, but the defendants appealed, arguing their liability was limited. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that as the insurer, St. Paul could only recover what the consignee was entitled to under the bill of lading, which limited liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    13. St. Paul Fire & Marine v.

    Macondray, 70 SCRA 122 (1976)

    CASE DIGEST

    CASE:

    PONENTE: ANTONIO, J.

    TOPIC/SUBJECT MATTER: ________________

    FACTS:
    Winthrop Products, Inc., of U.S.A., shipped aboard the SS "Tai Ping", owned andoperated by Wilhelm Wilhelmsen,
    218 cartons and drums of drugs and medicine, with thefreight prepaid, which were consigned to Winthrop-Stearns
    Inc., Manila, Philippines. Theshipment was insured by the shipper against loss and/or damage with the St. Paul Fire
    &Marine Insurance Company.The SS "Tai Ping" arrived at the Port of Manila and discharged its shipment into
    thecustody of Manila Port Service, the arrastre contractor for the Port of Manila. The saidshipment was discharged
    complete and in good order with the exception of one (1) drumand several cartons which were in bad order condition.
    Hence, the consignee filed a claimin the amount of P1,109.67 representing the C.I.F. value of the damaged drum and
    cartonsof medicine with the carrier, herein defendants-appellees and the Manila Port Service.Both refused to pay the
    claim. Consequently, the consignee filed its claim with the insurer,St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., and the
    insurance company, on the basis of suchclaim, paid to the consignee the insured value of the lost and damaged
    goods, includingother expenses in connection therewith, in the total amount of $1,134.46As subrogee of the rights of
    the shipper and/or consignee, the insurer, St. Paul Fire &Marine Insurance Co., instituted with the CFI the present
    action against the defendants forthe recovery of said amount plus costs. Defendants resisted the action, contending
    that thewhole cargo was delivered to the consignee in the same condition in which it was receivedfrom the carrying
    vessel; that their rights, duties and obligations as arrastre contractor atthe Port of Manila are governed by and subject
    to the terms, conditions and limitationscontained in the Management Contract between the Bureau of Customs and
    Manila PortService, and their liability is limited to the invoice value of the goods, but in no case morethan P500.00
    per package, pursuant to the said Management Contract; and that they arenot the agents of the carrying vessel in the
    receipt and delivery of cargoes in the Port ofManila.The defendants Macondray & Co., Inc., Barber
    Steamship Lines, Inc. and WilhelmWilhelmsen also contested the claim alleging that if any damage was
    sustained by theshipment while it was under the control of the vessel, such damage was caused
    byinsufficiency of packing, force majeure and/or perils of the sea, and that they, in good faithand for the purpose only
    of avoiding litigation without admitting liability to the consignee,offered to settle the latter's claim in full by paying the
    corresponding C.I.F. value, but theiroffer was declined by the consignee and/or the plaintiff. The lower court rendered
    judgment ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff, jointlyand severally. Plaintiff-appellant argues that, as
    subrogee of the consignee, it should beentitled to recover from the defendants appellees the amount of $1,134.46
    which it actuallypaid to the consignee and which represents the value of the lost and damaged shipmentas well as
    other legitimate expenses. Defendants appellees are not insurers of the goods,and as such they should not be made
    to pay the insured value.

    ISSUE:

    WON the insurance carrier can recover the said amount claimed.

    RULING:

    YES, the plaintiff-appellant, as insurer, after paying the claim of the insured fordamages under the insurance, is
    subrogated merely to the rights of the assured. Assubrogee, it can recover only the amount that is
    recoverable by the latter. Since the right ofthe assured, in case of loss or damage to the goods, is
    limited or restricted by theprovisions in the bill of lading, a suit by the insurer as subrogee necessarily is subject
    tolike limitations and restrictions.DISPOSITIVE: Respondent Won. Decision is affirmed.

    You might also like