Ty v.

First National Surety GR L-16138, 29 April 1961 (1 SCRA 1324) En Banc, Labrador (p): 8 concurring Facts: At different times within a period of two months prior to 24 December 1953, Diosdado C. Ty, employed as operator mechanic foreman in the Broadway Cotton Factory insured himself in 18 local insurance companies, among which being the 8 above-named defendants, which issued to him personal accident policies. Plaintiffs beneficiary was his employer, Broadway Cotton Factory, which paid the insurance premiums. On 24 December 1953, a fire broke out which totally destroyed the Broadway Cotton Factory. Fighting his way out of the factory, plaintiff was injured on the left hand by a heavy object. He was brought to the Manila Central University hospital, and after receiving first-aid, he went to the National Orthopedic Hospital for treatment of his injuries (fractures in index, middle, fourth, and fifth fingers of left hand). From 26 December 1953 to 8 February 1954, he underwent medical treatment in the hospital. The above-described physical injuries have caused temporary total disability of plaintiffs left hand. Plaintiff filed the corresponding notice of accident and notice of claim with all of the above-named defendants to recover indemnity. Defendants rejected plaintiffs claim for indemnity for the reason that there being no severance of amputation of the left hand, the disability suffered by him was not covered by his policy. Plaintiff sued the defendants in the Municipality Court of this City, which dismissed his complaints. Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance Manila, presided by Judge Gregorio S. Narvasa, which absolved the defendants from the complaints. Hence, the appeal. Issue: Whether Diosdado Ty is entitled to indemnity under the insurance policy for the disability of his left hand. Held: The agreement contained in the insurance policies is the law between the parties. As the terms of the policies are clear, express and specific that only amputation of the left hand should be considered as a loss thereof, an interpretation that would include the mere fracture or other temporary disability not covered by the policies would certainly be unwarranted. In the case at bar, due to the clarity of the stipulation, distinction between temporary disability and total disability need not be made in relation to ones occupation means that the condition of the insurance is such that common prudence requires him to desist from transacting his business or renders him incapable of working. While the Court sympathizes with the plaintiff or his employer, for whose benefit the policies were issued, it can not go beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all of which define partial disability as loss of either hand by a amputation through the bones of the wrist. There was no such amputation in the case at bar. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant