Paris-Manila Perfume Co. V. Phoenix Assurance Co.

(1926)

Facts:

May 22, 1924: A fire insurance policy was issued by Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited to Messrs.
Paris-Manila Perfumery Co. (Peter Johnson, Prop.) for P13,000

also insured with other insurance companies for P1,200 and P5,000 respectively

July 4, 1924: The Perfumery was burned unknown of the cause totalling a loss of P38.025.56

Phoenix refused to pay nor to appoint an arbitrator stating that the policy did not cover any loss or
damage occasioned by explosion and stating that the claim was fraudulent

RTC: ordered Phoenix to pay P13,000

Phoenix appealed

The insurance policy contains:

Unless otherwise expressly stated in the policy the insurance does not cover

(h) Loss or damage occasioned by the explosion; but loss or damage by explosion of gas for
illuminating or domestic purposes in a building in which gas is not generated and which does not form a
part of any gas works, will be deemed to be loss by fire within the meaning of this policy.

ISSUE: W/N Phoenix should be liable for the loss because there was no explosion which is an exemption
from the policy

HELD: YES.

If it be a fact that the fire resulted from an explosion that fact, if proven, would be a complete defense,
the burden of the proof of that fact is upon the defendant, and upon that point, there is a failure of
proof

lower court found as a fact that there was no fraud in the insurance, and that the value of the property
destroyed by the fire was more than the amount of the insurance.