Ang Ka Yu v.

Phoenix Assurance - Insurable

Interest
1 CARA 704
Facts:

> Ang Ka Yu had a piece of property in his possession. He insured it with Phoenix.

> The property was lost, so Ang Ka Yu sought to claim the proceeds.

> Phoenix denied liability on the ground that Ang was not the owner but a mere possessor and as such, had
no insurable interest over the property.

Issue:

Whether or not a mere possessor has insurable interest over the property.

Held:

Yes.

A person having a mere right or possession of property may insure it to its full value and in his own name,
even when he is not responsible for its safekeeping. The reason is that even if a person is NOT interested in
the safety and preservation of material in his possession because they belong to 3rd parties, said person still
has insurable interest, because he stands either to benefit from their continued existence or to be prejudiced
by their destruction.

ANG KA YU vs. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

ANG KA YU vs. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
1 CAR 704 28 September 1961
FACTS:
Ang Ka Yu, herein petitioner, was engaged in the business of dyeing and washing clothes. This would require
his clients to deliver and deposit to the petitioner such clothes that would require his service. He acquired from
Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd., herein respondent, a policy insuring the effects of his business. When the clothes
he had in his possession were lost, Ang Ka Yu sought to recover from Phoenix Assurance. However, the latter
refused the claim and denied liability on the ground that the petitioner was a mere possessor of said items, and
therefore did not have any insurable interest to the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner, allegedly being a mere possessor, has an insurable interest in the property of
concern.
HELD:
Yes. A person to whom clothes are delivered for dyeing or washing has insurable interest on such clothes,
because destruction of the textiles will mean pecuniary loss to him as he will be deprived of the compensation he
would be entitled to for dyeing the same, not to mention his pecuniary liability for labour and expenses.
A person who is interested in the safety and preservation of materials in his possession belonging to third parties
because he stands either to benefit from their continued existence or to be prejudiced by their destruction, has
an insurable interest thereon which is not necessarily limited to the extent of his liability to the owners thereof. A
person having mere right of possession of property may insure it to its full value and in his own name, even
when he is not responsible for its safekeeping.