Double Insurance

Presented by:

Kent Wilson Andales

Marc Angelo Bantug

Rafael Andrei La Madrid

Rolan Jeff Lancion

Mark Gabriel Maranga

Sec 95. A double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect to the same subject and interest.

Definition

In insurance contracts, the terms “additional insurance”, “other insurance” and “double insurance” are used interchangeably, although there is a technical difference in their meanings.

There is co-insurance by two (2) or more insurers hence it is also known as “co-insurance”.

Requisites: (PISIR)

(a) The person insured is the same(b) Two (2) or more insurers insuring separately(c) There is identity of subject matter(d) There is identity of interest insured(e) There is identity of risk or peril insured against.

Examples:

Juan insures his house against fire with ABC Insurance and XYZ Insurance Company. There is double insurance because all the requisites are present. The subject matter insured is the house of Juan. The interest insured is Juan’s interest in the house.

Don Pepot mortgages his house to Jay. Insurance taken by Don Pepot and another taken by Jay on the same house. In this example, there is no double insurance because it is not on the same insurable interest.

No double insurance if the mortgagor and the mortgagee separately insures the mortgaged property. The two (2) insurance policies do not involve the same interest.

Mr. Pedro owns a house and he insures it with Any Insurance Corp against fire for P500, 000 and with Matulungin Insurance Company against flood for P600, 000. There is no double insurance because although the same person and subject are involved in both insurance policies, the peril insured against are different.

1

Double Insurance in Life Insurance

There can be double insurance in life insurance but there can never be over-insurance. The life of a person can be insured for any amount and it would still be inadequate because of the intrinsic value of life.

Over Insurance by Double Insurance

There is over-insurance if the insured takes out an insurance over the property insured in an amount which is in excess of the value of his insurable interest.

Instances:

(a) Over-insurance may exist even if there is only one insurer and one policy. Example:Mr. Green owns a house valued at P1,000,000, there is over-insurance if he insures it with XYZ Corp. for P10,000,000.

(b) Over-insurance may likewise exist if there is double insurance.Example:Mr. Bryant owns a condominium unit valued at P800,000 and he insures it with Lakers Insurance Company against fire for P500,000 and with Clippers Corp against fire for P500,000.

(c) There can be under insurance even if there is double-insurance.Example:Mr. Irving owns a condominium unit valued at P500,000 and he insures it with Cavaliers Corp against fire for P200,000 and Nuggets Life Insurance Comp. against fire for P100,000.

The taking of another insurance without over-insurance is not a ground to rescind the policy under Sec. 64 (f).

Double insurance vs over insurance

Double insurance Over insurance There may be no over insurance as when

the sum total of the amounts of the policies issued does not exceed the insurable interest of the insured.

Always several insurers

The amount of the insurance is beyond the value of the insured’s insurable interest.

There may be only one insurer.

*Double insurance and over insurance may exist at the same time or neither may exist at all.

Examples:

Jojo’s insurable interest in a house is P1,000,000 and he insured it with Jolly Insurance company for P10,000,000, in this case there is over insurance but not double insurance.

2

Jojo insured his house with Jolly Insurance company for P 500,000 and Happy Insurance Company for P500,000, in this case there is double insurance and not over insurance.

If Jojo procures only one policy for the amount of P1,000,000 from Joy Insurance Company, there is neither double insurance.

Binding effects of stipulation against double insurance.

Legal Basis:

Sec 75. A policy which contains no stipulation against additional insurance is not invalidated by the procuring of such insurance.

Invariably, policies of fire insurance contain a stipulation or condition that they shall be avoided if additional insurance is procured on the property without the insurer’s consent.

A. Additional insurance obtained by the insured The provision known as additional or other insurance clause and is intended to prevent

an increase in the moral hazard. This is valid and reasonable and in the absence of consent, waiver or estoppel on the part of the insurer, a breach thereof will prevent a recovery on the policy.

In order to constitute a violation, the other insurance must be upon the same subject matter, same interest and risk.

B. Additional insurance obtained by a third person Good faith or bad faith of the insured is usually immaterial. Insurance obtained by a third person without the knowledge or consent of the insured

will not affect his rights under the policy in the absence of ratification.

No General Prohibition against double insurance

The implication of the rules on double-insurance under the Insurance Code is that double-insurance is not prohibited.

Exception:

Discovery of other insurance coverage the makes the total insurance in excess of the value of the property insured.

Two conditions that should be present: (a) another insurance coverage is discovered (b) the total insurance is in excess of the value of the property insured.

There is a great temptation upon dishonest person, whose property is insured up to its full value or above it, to bring about its destruction and the same considerations undoubtedly tend to lessen the care that may be exercised by the honest in preventing loss.

Other Insurance clause

3

Taking of another insurance policy over the same property may also be prohibited.

Alternative forms

(1) A condition that states that procurement of additional insurance without the consent of the insurer renders the policy ipso facto.

(2) A provision that requires the insured to disclose the existence of any other insurance on the property. Otherwise, the contract may be avoided for material concealment.

(3) A warranty that there is no other existing insurance over the same property.

Purpose

To prevent over-insurance and thus avert the perpetration of fraud.

Validity

The law authorizes insurance companies to terminate the contract at any time, by giving notice and refunding a ratable proportion of the premium.

An additional insurance unless consented to or unless a waiver was shown, ipso facto avoided the contract and the fact that the company had not after notice of such insurance, cancelled the policy, did not justify the legal conclusion that it had elected to allow it to continue in force.

Sec 96. Where the insured in a policy other than life is over insured by double insurance:

"(a) The insured, unless the policy otherwise provides, may claim payment from the insurers in such order as he may select, up to the amount for which the insurers are severally liable under their respective contracts;

"(b) Where the policy under which the insured claims is a valued policy, any sum received by him under any other policy shall be deducted from the value of the policy without regard to the actual value of the subject matter insured;

"(c) Where the policy under which the insured claims is an unvalued policy, any sum received by him under any policy shall be deducted against the full insurable value, for any sum received by him under any policy;

"(d) Where the insured receives any sum in excess of the valuation in the case of valued policies, or of the insurable value in the case of unvalued policies, he must hold such sum in trust for the insurers, according to their right of contribution among themselves;

"(e) Each insurer is bound, as between himself and the other insurers, to contribute ratably to the loss in proportion to the amount for which he is liable under his contract.

4

Application of Sec 96:

This section will apply if there was prior consent of the insurers in taking the insurance or double insurance is not prohibited in the policy even if the total coverage is in excess of the value of the property.

Under par (b), the insurer will already deduct the amount that was previously received by the insurer.

Under par (c), under the old law it provides that “where the policy under which the insured claims is an unvalued policy he must give credit as against the full insurable value, for any sum received by him under any policy.” It is now modified that “in an unvalued policy, any sum received by him under any policy shall be deducted against the full insurable value, for any sum received by him under any policy”

Under par (e), it governs the liability of the insurers among themselves where the total insurance taken exceeds the loss. If the loss is greater than the sum total of all the policies issued, each insurer is liable for the amount of his policy.

Rules for payment of claims where is over-insurance by double insurance.

This section is aboutPrinciple of contribution which requires each insurer to contribute ratably to the loss or damage considering that the several insurances cover the same subject matter and interest against the same peril.

Cases

Geagonia vs CA

Facts:

Armando Geagonia is the owner of Norman's Mart located in the public market of San Francisco, Agusandel Sur. On December 22, 1989, he obtained from Country Bankers Insurance Corporation fire insurance policy No. F-14622 2 for P100,000.00. The period of the policy was from December 22, 1989 to December 22, 1990 and covered the following: "Stock-in-trade consisting principally of dry goods such as RTW's for men and women wear and other usual to assured's business." Geagonia declared in the policy under the subheading entitled CO-INSURANCE that Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. was the co-insurer for P50,000.00. From 1989 to 1990, Geagonia had in his inventory stocks amounting to P392,130.50, itemized as follows: Zenco Sales, Inc., P55,698.00; F. Legaspi Gen. Merchandise, 86,432.50; and Cebu Tesing Textiles, 250,000.00 (on credit); totalling P392,130.50. The policy contained the following condition, that "the insured shall give notice to the Company of any insurance or insurances already effected, or which may subsequently be effected, covering any of the property or properties consisting of stocks in trade, goods in process and/or inventories only hereby insured, and unless notice be given and the particulars of such insurance or insurances be stated therein or endorsed in this policy pursuant to Section 50 of the Insurance Code, by or on behalf of the Company before the occurrence of

5

any loss or damage, all benefits under this policy shall be deemed forfeited, provided however, that this condition shall not apply when the total insurance or insurances in force at the time of the loss or damage is not more than P200,000.00." On May 27, 1990, fire of accidental origin broke out at around 7:30 p.m. at the public market of San Francisco,Agusan del Sur. Geagonia's insured stocks-in-trade were completely destroyed prompting him to file with Country Bankers a claim under the policy. On December 28, 1990, Country Bankers denied the claim because it found that at the time of the loss.

Geagonia's stocks-in-trade were likewise covered by fire insurance policies GA-28146 and GA-28144, for P100,000.00 each, issued by the Cebu Branch of the Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. (PFIC). These policies indicate that the insured was "Messrs. Discount Mart (Mr. Armando Geagonia, Prop.)" with a mortgage clause reading ""MORTGAGEE: Loss, if any, shall be payable to Messrs. Cebu Tesing Textiles, Cebu City as their interest may appear subject to the terms of this policy. CO-INSURANCE DECLARED: P100,000. — Phils. First CEB/F-24758" The basis of Country Bankers' denial was Geagonia's alleged violation of Condition 3 of the policy. Geagonia then filed a complaint against Country Bankers with the Insurance Commission (Case 3340) for the recovery of P100,000.00 under fire insurance policy F-14622 and for attorney's fees and costs of litigation. He attached his letter of January 18, 1991 which asked for the reconsideration of the denial. He admitted in the said letter that at the time he obtained Country Bankers's fire insurance policy he knew that the two policies issued by the PFIC were already in existence; however, he had no knowledge of the provision in Country Bankers' policy requiring him to inform it of the prior policies; this requirement was not mentioned to him by Country Bankers' agent; and had it been so mentioned, he would not have withheld such information. He further asserted that the total of the amounts claimed under the three policies was below the actual value of his stocks at the time of loss, which was P1,000,000.00.

In its decision of June 21, 1993, the Insurance Commission found that Geagonia did not violate Condition 3 as he had no knowledge of the existence of the two fire insurance policies obtained from the PFIC; that it was Cebu Tesing Textiles which procured the PFIC policies without informing him or securing his consent; and that Cebu Tesing Textile, as his creditor, had insurable interest on the stocks. These findings were based on Geagonia's testimony that he came to know of the PFIC policies only when he filed his claim with Country Bankers and that Cebu Tesing Textile obtained them and paid for their premiums without informing him thereof. The Insurance Commission ordered Country Bankers to pay Geagonia the sum of P100,000.00 with legal interest from the time the complaint was filed until fully satisfied plus the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees. With costs. Its motion for the reconsideration of the decision having been denied by the Insurance Commission in its resolution of August 20, 1993, Country Bankers appealed to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review (CA-GR SP 31916). In its decision of December 29, 1993, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Insurance Commission because it found that Geagonia knew of the existence of the two other policies issued by the PFIC. His motion to reconsider the adverse decision having been denied, Geagonia filed the petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: WONthere is double insurance in the case at bar so as to deny Geagonia from recovering on the insurance policy

Held: NO.

Condition 3 of the private respondent's Policy No. F-14622 is a condition which is not proscribed by law. Its incorporation in the policy is allowed by Section 75 of the Insurance Code15 which provides that "[a] policy may declare that a violation of specified provisions thereof shall avoid it, otherwise the breach of an immaterial provision does not avoid the policy." Such a condition is a provision which invariably appears in fire insurance policies and is intended to prevent an increase in the moral hazard. It is

6

commonly known as the additional or "other insurance" clause and has been upheld as valid and as a warranty that no other insurance exists. Its violation would thus avoid the policy. 16 However, in order to constitute a violation, the other insurance must be upon same subject matter, the same interest therein, and the same risk. 17

As to a mortgaged property, the mortgagor and the mortgagee have each an independent insurable interest therein and both interests may be one policy, or each may take out a separate policy covering his interest, either at the same or at separate times. 18 The mortgagor's insurable interest covers the full value of the mortgaged property, even though the mortgage debt is equivalent to the full value of the property. 19 The mortgagee's insurable interest is to the extent of the debt, since the property is relied upon as security thereof, and in insuring he is not insuring the property but his interest or lien thereon. His insurable interest is prima facie the value mortgaged and extends only to the amount of the debt, not exceeding the value of the mortgaged property. 20 Thus, separate insurances covering different insurable interests may be obtained by the mortgagor and the mortgagee.

A mortgagor may, however, take out insurance for the benefit of the mortgagee, which is the usual practice. The mortgagee may be made the beneficial payee in several ways. He may become the assignee of the policy with the consent of the insurer; or the mere pledgee without such consent; or the original policy may contain a mortgage clause; or a rider making the policy payable to the mortgagee "as his interest may appear" may be attached; or a "standard mortgage clause," containing a collateral independent contract between the mortgagee and insurer, may be attached; or the policy, though by its terms payable absolutely to the mortgagor, may have been procured by a mortgagor under a contract duty to insure for the mortgagee's benefit, in which case the mortgagee acquires an equitable lien upon the proceeds. 21

In the policy obtained by the mortgagor with loss payable clause in favor of the mortgagee as his interest may appear, the mortgagee is only a beneficiary under the contract, and recognized as such by the insurer but not made a party to the contract himself. Hence, any act of the mortgagor which defeats his right will also defeat the right of the mortgagee. 22 This kind of policy covers only such interest as the mortgagee has at the issuing of the policy. 23

On the other hand, a mortgagee may also procure a policy as a contracting party in accordance with the terms of an agreement by which the mortgagor is to pay the premiums upon such insurance. 24 It has been noted, however, that although the mortgagee is himself the insured, as where he applies for a policy, fully informs the authorized agent of his interest, pays the premiums, and obtains on the assurance that it insures him, the policy is in fact in the form used to insure a mortgagor with loss payable clause. 25

XXX With these principles in mind, we are of the opinion that Condition 3 of the subject policy is not totally free from ambiguity and must, perforce, be meticulously analyzed. Such analysis leads us to conclude that (a) the prohibition applies only to double insurance, and (b) the nullity of the policy shall only be to the extent exceeding P200,000.00 of the total policies obtained.

The first conclusion is supported by the portion of the condition referring to other insurance "covering any of the property or properties consisting of stocks in trade, goods in process and/or inventories only hereby insured," and the portion regarding the insured's declaration on the subheading CO-INSURANCE that the co-insurer is Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. in the sum of P50,000.00. A double insurance exists

7

where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect of the same subject and interest. As earlier stated, the insurable interests of a mortgagor and a mortgagee on the mortgaged property are distinct and separate. Since the two policies of the PFIC do not cover the same interest as that covered by the policy of the private respondent, no double insurance exists. The non-disclosure then of the former policies was not fatal to the petitioner's right to recover on the private respondent's policy.

UNION MANUFACTURING CO., INC. VS. PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO.,

47 SCRA 271 (G.R. NO. L-27932) OCTOBER 30, 1972

FACTS:

On January 12, 1962, the Union Manufacturing Co., Inc. obtained certainl o a n s f r o m t h e R e p u b l i c B a n k i n t h e t o t a l s u m o f 4 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . T o secure the payment thereof, UMC executed real and chattel mortgageon certain properties.The Republic Bank procured from the defendant Philippine GuarantyCo., Inc. an insurance coverage on loss against fire for 500,000.00over the properties of the UMC, as described in defendant’s cover notedated September 25, 1962, with the annotation that loss or damage, if any, under said cover note is payable to Republic Bank as its interest a y a p p e a r , s u b j e c t h o w e v e r t o t h e p r i n t e d c o n d i ti o n s o f s a i d defendant’s Fire Insurance Policy Form.On September 6, 1964, a fire occurred in the premises of UMC and on October 6, 1964, UMC filed its fire claim with the PGC Inc., thru its a d j u s t e r , H . H . B a y n e A d j u s t m e n t C o . , w h i c h w a s d e n i e d b y s a i d defendant in its letter dated November 26, 1964 on the following ground:“Policy Condition No. 3 and/or the ‘Other Insurance Clause’ of the policy was violated because you did not give notice to us of the other insurancewhich you had taken from New India for 80,000.00. Sincere InsuranceP25,000.00 and Manila Insurance for 200,000.00 with the result that these insurances of which we became aware of only after the fire, were not endorsed on our policy.ISSUE: Whether Republic Bank can recover.

HELD:Without deciding- whether notice of other insurance upon the same property must be given in writing, or whether a verbal notice is sufficientto render an insurance valid which requires such notice, whether oral or written, we hold that in the absolute absence of such notice when it is one of the conditions specified in the fire insurance policy, the policy isnull and void. (Santa Ana vs. Commercial Union Ass. Co., 55 Phil. 128).I f t h e i n s u r e d h a s v i o l a t e d o r f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m t h e c o n d i ti o n s o f t h e contract, and such a violation or want of performance has not beenwaived by the insurer, then the insured cannot recover. Courts are notpermitted to make contracts for the parties. The functions and duty of thecourts consist simply in enforcing and carrying out the contracts actuallymade.W h i l e i t i s t r u e , a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , t h a t c o n t r a c t s o f i n s u r a n c e a r e construed most favorably to the insured, yet contracts of insurance, likeother contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaningof the terms which the parties themselves have used. If such terms areclear and unambiguous they must be taken and understood in

8

their plain,ordinary and popular sense.The annotation then, must be deemed to be a warranty that the propertywas not insured by any other policy. Violation thereof entitles the insurer to rescind. The materiality of non-disclosure of other insurance policies isnot open to doubt.The insurance contract may be rather onerous, but that in itself does not justify the abrogation of its express terms, terms which the insured accepted or adhered to and which is the law between the contracting parties.

General Insurance & Surety Corp vs. Ng Hua

FACTS:

In 1952, petitioner General Insurance issued a fire policy to Ng Hua to cover the contents of the Central Pomade Factory owned by him.

There was a provision in the policy that should there be any insurance already effected or to be subsequently procured, the insured shall give notice to the insurer.

Ng Hua declared that there was none. The very next day, the building and the goods stored therein burned.

Subsequently, the claim of Ng Hua for the proceeds was denied by General since it discovered that Ng Hua had obtained an insurance from General Indemnity Company for the same goods and for the same period of time.

The face of the policy bore the annotation: “Co-insurance Declared – NIL”. CTA, favoring Ng Hua, declared that there is no co-insurance to speak of because co-insurance

exists only when a condition a condition of the policy requires the insured to bear ratable proportion of the loss when the value of the insured property exceeds the face value of the policy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not General Insurance can refuse to pay the proceeds?

HELD:

Yes, General Insurance can validly refuse to pay the proceeds.The terms of the policy which required the insured to declare other insurances must be deemed a warranty binding on both the insurer and insured. Ng Hua’s violation of the statement entitles General Insurance the right to rescind the contract of insurance as such misrepresentation is considered fatal.

If “co-insurance” means that the CA says, the annotation served no purpose. It would be even contrary to the policy itself, which in its clause no. 17 made the insured a co-insurer for the excess of the value of the property over the amount of policy.

ULPIANO STA. ANA VS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (G.R. No. L-32889)

FACTS:

9

In 1923, Mr. Sta. Ana built a house in Pasig, in which he took a P3,000-fire insurance policy in Phoenix Assurance Company for a period of one year or until 1 October 1926.

In Nov. 1925, Sta. Ana mortgaged said house to the plaintiff Rafael Garcia for P5,000, for a period of 2 years, whereby the policies issued by the Phoenix Assurance Company and the Guardian Assurance Company were endorsed to mortgagee, Rafael Garcia.

In Dec. 1925, Sta. Ana reinsured said house with the defendant companies, the Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company of New York and Commercial Assurance Company, Limited of London.

In Sept. 1926, took out another insurance policy on the house for P6,000 in the Filipinas Compania de Seguros.

At around 3AM of 1 Oct. 1926, 12 hours before the expiration of policies issued by Phoenix Assurance and Guardian Assurance, a fire broke out in the insured house.

Sta. Ana demanded for payment of policies in each of the companies, but assurance companies refused payment on the following grounds: (a) claim was fraudulent being in excess of the real value of the property; (b) none of said companies had been informed of the existence of the other policies; and (c) the fire was intentional.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the plaintiff (Ulpiano Sta. Ana) can claim the net proceeds from the insurance companies?

HELD:

No, the plaintiff cannot claim net proceeds. Without deciding whether the notice of other insurance companies upon the same property must be given in writing, or whether a verbal notice is sufficient to render an insurance valid which requires such notice, whether oral or written, SC held that in the absolute absence of such notice when it is one of the conditions specified in the fire insurance policy, the policy is null and void. Since the policy is null and void, plaintiff cannot recover from the defendants insurance companies.

Malayan Insurance Co. (Malayan) vs. Philippine First insurance Co. (Philippine First) and Reputable Forwarder Services (Reputable)

Facts:Wyeth Philippines, Inc. (Wyeth) and Reputable had an annual contract of carriage wherein Reputable undertook to transport and deliver Wyeth’s products.

Under the contract, Reputable will answer to all risks and shall be liable to Wyeth. Moreover, it required Reputable to secure an insurance policy of Wyeth’s goods. Thus, Reputable insured the same from Malayan.

10

On the other hand, Wyeth procured an insurance policy from Philippines First to secure its own products while being transported or shipped.

Reputable received from Wyeth 1,000 boxes of Promil infant formula to be delivered to Mercury Drug, unfortunately, it was hijacked by highway robbers. Philippines First paid Wyeth and demanded reimbursement from Reputable which the latter ignored.

Philippines First filed an action for a sum of money against Reputable and the latter impleaded Malayan as co-defendant to collect the amount covered in the policy. RTC rendered that Reputable is liable to Philippines First for the amount of indemnity to Wyeth, and Malayan is liable to Reputable to the extent of the policy coverage. The CA affirmed RTC’s decision, Malayan appealed to the SC.

Issue:Whether or not there is double insurance?

Held:No, there was no double insurance because even though the two (2) policies were issued over the same subject matter and covered the same peril insured against, they were issued to two (2) different entities having different insurable interests. Wyeth and Reputable separately insured the same goods.

Under Section 95 of the Insurance Code, there are five (5) requisites to be met for double insurance to arise:

1.) The person/entity insured is the same;2.) Two (2) or more insurers insuring separately;3.) There is identity of subject matter;4.) There is identity of interest insured;5.) There is identity of risks or peril insured against.

In this case, the first (1st) and fourth (4th) requisites are absent.

Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Oliva Yap

Facts:Oliva Yap was the owner of a store in a two-storey building where she sold shopping bags and footwear. Chua Soon Poon, her son-in-law, was in charge of the store.

Yap took out a Fire Insurance from Pioneer Insurance with a value of P25,000.00 covering her stocks, office furniture, fixtures and fittings.

Among the conditions in the policy executed by the parties are the following:unless such notice be given and the particulars of such insurance or insurances be stated in, or endorsed on this Policy by or on behalf of the Company before the occurrence of any loss or damage, all benefits under this Policy shall be forfeited… Any false declaration or breach or this condition will render this policy null and void.

11

Another insurance policy for P20,000.00 issued by Great American covering the same properties. The endorsement recognized co-insurance by Northwest for the same value. Oliva Yap took out another fire insurance policy for P20,000.00 covering the same properties from the Federal Insurance Company, Inc., which was procured without notice to and the written consent of Pioneer.

A fire broke out in the building, and the store was burned. Yap filed an insurance claim, but the same was denied for a breach. Oliva Yap filed a case for payment of the face value of her fire insurance policy. The insurance company refused to pay because she never informed Pioneer of another insurer. The trial court decided in favor of Yap. Tshe CA affirmed.

Issue:Whether or not Oliva Yap should be absolved from liability on the Pioneeer policy on account of any violation of the co-insurance clause?

Held:No, There was a violation. The insurance policy for P20,000.00 issued by the Great American, ceased to be recognized by them as a co-insurance policy. Other insurance without the consent of Pioneer would avoid the contract. The obvious purpose of the aforesaid requirement in the policy is to prevent over-insurance and thus avert the perpetration of fraud. The public, as well as the insurer, is interested in preventing the situation in which a fire would be profitable to the insured. Double insurance is not prohibited by law but it may be prohibited by “other insurance clause” which is intended to prevent a moral hazard. It is valid and reasonable, a breach thereof will prevent a recovery from the policy.

12

13