Notice Through Agent. resident agent, is not "immediate," no excuse being shown for delay. Railway Ins. Co. v. Burwell, 44 Ind. 460. 28.- Condition requiring notice of loss forthwith means due diligence under all circumstances, and an eighteen days' notice held not sufficient. Edwards v. Ins. Co., 75 Pa. 378. 29. Forty-eight days' delay in giving notice of a loss is fatal to recovery. Brown v. London Assurance Corporation, 40 Hun, 101 (N. Y.) 36. If the condition of a policy requires notice of a loss to be given in writing to the secretary, or one of the directors, notice by parol to an agent will be of no effect. Patrick v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 43 N. H. 621. 37. A notice of loss given to a local agent, that produces the result of inducing the sending of the general agents to investigate, is sufficient without reference to particulars. Ins. Co. of N. A. v. McDowell, 50 Ill. 120. 39.- Notice of the loss to a local agent who by next mail informs the company by a letter addressed to the secretary is sufficient. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 73 Pa. 342. 30. A delay of three months and 38. Notice of loss to a local agent of nineteen days after a fire before giving company is sufficient. Kendall v. Holnotice of loss, under a policy requir-land Purchase Ins. Co., 2 T. & C. 375; ing it to be given forthwith, is unrea-affi'd, 58 N. Y. 682. sonable; and notice thereafter given is not in compliance with the policy. * Baker v. German F. Ins. Co., 24 N. East. Rep. 1,041; 19 Ins. L. J. 802; 124 Ind. 490. 31.- Notice of a fire to the insurer fourteen days thereafter, unaccompanied by any fact or circumstance excusing the delay, is not immediate notice, within the conditions of the policy. *La Force v. Williams City F. Ins. Co., 43 Mo. App. 518. 32. Failure to give notice of loss under a policy of fire insurance, until thirty-three days after the fire, will bar a recovery upon the policy when it provides and is subject to the condition that immediate notice be given. * Quinlan v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 317; 39 N. Y. S. Rep. 820; aff'd, 31 N. East. Rep. 31; 133 N. Y. 356. 33. Failure to furnish proofs of loss until seven months after the fire is a bar to an action upon a policy of fire insurance requiring such proofs to be furnished within sixty days. Id. 34.- Nineteen days' delay in serving a notice of loss, can not be said to be "forthwith," in absence of special circumstances justifying the delay. *Weed v. Hamburg Bremen Ins. Co., 31 N. East. Rep. 231; 133 N. Y. 394. 40.- A local agent has no authority as such to receive notice of loss, and is not bound to communicate it to the company. Edwards v. Ins. Co., 75 Pa. 378. 41. When policy does not require notice of loss to be in writing, or the information conveyed in any special or formal manner, a notice given by a messenger verbally to the insuring agent and by him communicated to the company is both in time and form sufficient. Argall v. Ins. Co., 84 N. C. 355. 42.- Notice of loss may be served on agent who countersigned the policy. Bernero v. So. Brit. & Nat. Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 386. 43.- Where a condition of an insurance policy requires that the assured shall give written notice of the loss to the secretary of the company within twenty days after it occurs, an oral notice to the local agent two days after the loss, and written notice to the secretary more than a month afterwards is not a substantial compliance with the condition. Cornell v. Milwaukee Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Wis. 387. 35. Notice through agent. Verbal 44. An agent of an insurance comnotice to company's local agent held suffi-pany, who has full authority to do whatcient. Killips v. Putnam Ins. Co., 28 ever is necessary in the adjustment of a Wis. 472. Note.-Probably otherwise now under change in phraseology requiring written notice; but if company should act on a verbal notice through its agent it would doubtless operate as evidence of a waiver. loss, has authority to waive a provision in the policy that the assured shall give immediate notice of the loss in writing to the company, notwithstanding the policy provides that the company shall not be bound by the acts or declarations of its. Com agents, not contained in the policy. company to produce the notice. Stevens v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 69 Iowa, monwealth Ins. Co. v. Monninger, 18 Ind. 658. 45. Where a fire insurance policy stipulates that the insured shall give notice of loss forthwith, immediate notice to a local agent is sufficient. Fisher v. Crescent Ins. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 544. 46.- Where the insured, on the next day after fire, notified the local agent of his loss, and asked him to inform the company, and was told that notice had already been sent, this was a sufficient compliance with the requirement of immediate notice, although the agent's letter did not state that it was sent by request of the insured. *Loeb v. American C. Ins. Co., 12 S. W. Rep. 374; 99 Mo. 50. 47.- Notice of loss given by the local agent and acted upon by the company is sufficient under a policy providing that notice and proof of loss shall be given to the company, but not pointing out how or by whom. *Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Perry, 47 Balt. Underwriter, 286; 30 N. East. Rep. 637 (Ind.) 352. 52. Question for jury. The condition requiring "notice of loss forthwith,” is to be construed as meaning with due diligence and without unnecessary delay, and whether such due diligence has been used is a question to be determined by the jury. Edwards v. Baltimore Ins. Co., 3 Gill, 176 (Md.) 53. If the notice of a loss to the insurers is sufficient in form, it is for the jury to determine whether it is sufficient in substance. Witherell v. Maine Ins. Co., 49 Me. 200. 54. A question as to waiver of notice of loss is proper to be submitted to the jury. Drake v. Farmers' Union Ins. Co., 3 Grant Cas. 325 (Pa.) 55. Reasonable time is often a question for the court-e. g., as notice of dishonor of a note, notice to quit by landlord; but when the question depends on numerous circumstances which would seldom be the same, it may be left to the jury. Davis, Hackett & Co. v. Western Mass. Ins. Co., 8 R. I. 277. 48. Service by mail. Service of a notice required by a condition in the policy by mail, raises a presumption that it 56. It is for the jury to say whether was received; but such presumption is the assured gave notice of loss forthwith; not conclusive, and may be rebutted by but if the company, in directing its agent other evidence that such notice was afterwards to forward the proofs, and in never, in fact, received. Plath v. Minne-its negotiations raised no such question, sota Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 23 Minn. 479. 49.- Mailing of a notice or paper to company in an envelope properly addressed and stamped is presumptive evidence of its receipt, and if there is no evidence of its not being received, will sustain a finding that it was received. Shannon v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Tupper, 81; affg, 26 Up. Can. C. P. 380. 50. The sending by the insured of the preliminary notice of loss by mail is prima facie evidence of service of such notice, and in the absence of denial of its receipt the jury may infer actual notice therefrom. Susquehanna Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tunkhannock Toy Co., 97 Pa. 424. passing on the claim on other grounds, the jury may find a strict compliance has been waived. It seems, the court cannot charge whether a notice after eight days is or is not a notice forthwith. May v. Buckeye Mut. Ins. Co., 25 Wis. 291. 57. When policy requires notice of a loss "forthwith," if there is any evidence justifying or excusing a delay of twentythree days, the question should be submitted to the jury. Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Bedford, 5 Ins. L. J. 529 (Pa.); 2 W. N. C. 529. 58.— The condition requiring immediate notice of a loss must receive a liberal construction, and the question is one to be determined by the jury. The word "immediate" must mean a reasonable time under the circumstances. Lockwood v. Middlesex Mut. Ins. Co., 47 Conn. 553; 11 Ins. L. J. 41. 51. Evidence. It is competent to prove by the testimony of a witness, that he forwarded a notice of the loss by fire to the company, and to read to the jury a copy of that notice, retained at the 59. Whether notice of loss be given time, without having first notified the with due diligence, when delay explained Question for the Court question for the jury. Griffey v. New York Central Ins. Co., 15 Ins. L. J. 198; 1 Cent. Rep. 528; 100 N. Y. 417; aff'g, 30 Hun, 299. 60. Question for the court. In case of fire, policy required notice to be given "forthwith." Held, that the word does not mean immediately or instantaneously after the fire. It means within a reasonable time, or with reasonable diligence after the fire. What is reasonable time depends upon all the circumstances of the When the facts are undisputed it is a question for the court. Bennett v. Lycoming Mut. Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 274. case. 61.- Immediate means with due diligence according to circumstances; usually it is a question for the jury, but it may be a question of law when there is no conflict in the evidence, and the inference admits of no doubt. Donahue v. Windsor Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 116; 56 Vt. 374. 62. Waiver. Where it appeared in evidence that the president and one of the directors of the company went to the place where the fire was, for the purpose of examining into the matter; held, that the assured might well be excused from giving any further notice to the company, as he could not make it more certain. If the knowledge be fully communicated, courts are not very particular as to the form in which it is done. Roumage v. Mechanics' Fire Ins. Co., 1 Green, 110 (N. J.) 63.- Where "notice of loss" is required, and, upon demand for payment on policy, the underwriters reply that the proof is unsatisfactory, there has been a material concealment, and all rights are forfeited under a certain article of the policy, and add that they reserve all objections to a recovery in any form, and without intending to waive any of their rights under the policy; this answer cannot be construed as a waiver of the objection that notice of loss was not given forthwith. Edwards v. Baltimore Ins. Co., 3 Gill, 176 (Md.) Waiver. time, is no waiver of the delay. St. Louis Ins. Co. v. Kyle, 11 Mo. 278. 65.- Where notice was merely of a loss, and defective in other particulars, and the president of the company, after visiting the ruins, made no objection to the notice, nor called for any further particulars, but refused to pay the loss altogether; held, that the company had thereby waived any further or different notice. Clark v. New England Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Cush. 342 (Mass.) 66.- Where fire occurred on the 10th of August, and notice of the loss, dated on the 11th, was received by the secretary on the 15th of the same month by mail; held, that this was a compliance with the condition of the policy requiring immediate notice of loss. Held further, that if, upon receipt of such notice, the secretary informed assured that prompt steps would be taken to adjust and examine the matter, and the company subsequently refused to pay the loss on other grounds, this was a waiver of the objection on the part of the company. Schenck v. Mercer County Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Zabr. 447 (N. J.) 67.- Policy required notice of loss and particulars thereof as soon after as possible. There were two separate policies issued to assured—one on a shop, and the other on goods contained in it. Both building and goods were destroyed. It appeared that the fire took place on the 13th of June, and the notices, both as to shop and goods, were given on the 13th of July. The defendants then entered into correspondence with the assured as to furnishing better particulars, which were afterwards furnished; and they then refused to pay for the goods on account of some suspicious circumstances attending the fire, but they paid the amount insured on the house. Held, that under the circumstances the defendants were precluded from objecting to the sufficiency of the notices, or to the time at which they were given. Lampkin v. Ontario Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 12 Up. Can. Q. B. 578. 68. The facts that the secretary of the company received a "notice of loss" without objection as to delay in giving it, and gave instructions to the insured as to the form of his statement of loss, and Waiver. that an agent of the company subse- of the company's attorney, and when he quently made examinations respecting returned to town, the company could in the loss, is not a waiver of the requirement of due and timely notice. Trask v. State Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 29 Pa. 198. form them what would be done. Held, that these statements did not constitute any waiver of the company's right to object to the notice as insufficient. Id. -- 74. A failure to request further proof on receipt of notice is a waiver of the insufficiency. Walker v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 56 Me. 371. 69. Where the company has been discharged from liability by want of notice of loss in due time, responsibility for the loss will not re-attach to them, without proving authority in the agent to waive the notice, or a new considera- 75.— Receiving a notice of loss sent by tion to sustain it. Id. local agent at insurer's request, without 70.- A vote by the directors of an in- objection, is a waiver of all exceptions to surance company to indefinitely post-it, though the policy required the notice pone the subject of a loss will not be to be a sworn statement, and only a letdeemed a waiver of a condition of theter was sent. Works v. Farmers' M. F. policy, requiring notice of the loss to be Ins. Co., 57 Me. 281. given within thirty days. A defect in time of the notice stands on different ground from a defect in its matter; and the silence of the company as to such defeet should not be deemed a waiver. Patrick v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 43 N. H. 621. 76.- Waiver of proofs is a waiver of immediate notice of the fire. Hibernia Ins. Co. v. O'Connor, 29 Mich. 241. 77. If company acts upon an informal notice of the loss, it is a waiver of its insufficiency. West Rockingham Fire Ins. Co. v. Sheets, 26 Grat. 854 (Va.) 78. The facts that when notice of a loss is given to secretary of a company, he claims that the company has no risk upon the property, without taking the ground that notice is too late, and believing that policy has been canceled, do not show waiver of notice. Bennett v. Lycom 71.- Where an insurance company, after notice of a fire, by letter, from the insured, five or six days after it had occurred, sent an agent to investigate the loss, etc., and such agent, by authority of the company, offered to compromise the loss; held, that the company had by their acts waived the objection; and were es-ing Mut. Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 274. topped from setting up the defense that 79. A verbal notice of loss is suffinotice of the loss was not sent "forth-cient, no other being stipulated for. If with,” as required by the policy. Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Schreffler, 42 Pa. 188. 72.- Where a written notice of loss, given after the expiration of the time limited, states that the assured had given the company verbal notice within the time limited, through its agent (naming him), a neglect of the company to object at the time to this statement is not a waiver of its right to object to the notice as insufficient on the trial. Cornell v. Milwaukee Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Wis. 387. not given in accordance with the contract the informality will be waived by the failure to object to its form and making objection to payment on other grounds. State Ins. Co. v. Maackens, 9 Vroom, 564 (N. J.) 80.- Notice of loss was signed by mother of owner, and advised company of fire and number of its policy. No objection was made, nor offer to return it. Held, sufficient notice. It advised defendant of the loss, which was all that was required. O'Brien v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 76 N. Y. 459. 73. After an insufficient notice of loss was given, the secretary of the company 81.- When an insurance company wrote to the attorneys of the assured sends an agent to adjust a loss, it is (who had requested a settlement) that estopped to subsequently deny that it the president of the company would be had proper notice of loss, and it is, in the in their place on a specified day to ar- absence of fraud, concluded by the adrange the matter; and afterwards wrote justment made by such agent. Home them that the matter was in the hands | Ins. Co. v. Myer, 93 Ill. 271. Other Special Cases. 82.- Company is not bound to object v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 56 Me. 371. to failure to give notice of loss as prescribed. Donahue v. Windsor Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 116; 56 Vt. 374. of 90.- Assured proving that he has given the notice of loss required by the policy, need not show that he has given that provided by statute also. Campbell v. Monmouth Mut. F. Ins. Co., 59 Me. 430. 91. Although under Ind. Rev. Stat. 1881, § 3,770, a requirement in the policy issued by a foreign insurance company, 84. Acknowledgment of receipt proofs and offer to return premium paid, do not amount to waiver of due service of notice of loss. Brown v. London As-that in case of loss notice thereof shall be surance Corporation, 40 Hun, 101 (N. Y.) 85.— An adjuster has power to dispense with or waive notice of loss. Stevens v. Citizen's Ins. Co., 16 Ins. L. J. 112; 69 Iowa, 658. given forthwith, is invalid, yet an unexplained delay of fifty days in giving notice of loss to such foreign company is unreasonable. Pickels v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 119 Ind. 291; 21 N. East. Rep. 898. 92. A condition in a foreign policy 86.- An insurance company, which, issued in Indiana, requiring immediate with full knowledge of a fire and loss notice of the loss,-held, to mean that the thereunder, demands and accepts from assured shall use reasonable diligence in the insured the premium upon the policy, giving notice of the loss. Where the facts for which credit has been given, cannot are not in dispute, it becomes a question be heard to say that the contract of in- of law for the court to determine whether, surance was not in force, or to demand in the given case, the notice was reasonfurther notice of the loss other than, able. Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Brim, within a reasonable time, the furnishing 16 Ins. L. J. 720; 9 West. Rep. 830; 111 of the preliminary proofs of the particu- | Ind. 281; 12 N. East. Rep. 315. lars of the loss. *Emery v. Svea F. Ins. Co., 88 Cal. 300; 26 Pac. Rep. 88; 20 Ins. L. J. 959. 87. That an adjuster visited the scene of the fire on the day after the loss, and informed the insured that no notice or proof of loss need be furnished, is sufficient to excuse failure to give the notice within fifty days, although the policy required notice within a reasonable time. *Phænix Ins. Co. v. Pickel, 29 N. East. Rep. 432; 3 Ind. App. 332. 88.- When a notice of loss is required "forthwith" it can not operate to deprive the insured of a fair opportunity to serve it. An objection that same is not served in time must be promptly made, and is waived by company requesting an amendment of proofs served. *Weed v. Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co., 31 N. East. Rep. 231; 133 N. Y. 394; affg, 61 Hun, 110; 15 N. Y. Supp. 429; 39 N. Y. S. Rep. 638. 93.- If a policy requires notice to be given within a definite time, not within the period prohibited by statute, or if the notice is unreasonably delayed without any circumstances of excuse, a failure to object to a notice given after the right of action on the policy has expired will not revive the right. Authorities cited. Id. 94.- What constitutes reasonable diligence or reasonable notice must depend upon all the circumstances of each particular case. Authorities cited. Id. 95. Insurance companies have the right to contract that parties shall assert their claims within a reasonable time. Authorities cited. Id. 96. Under the Indiana statute the provision requiring "immediate " notice is void. Id. 97.- Fifteen days' notice of loss will not be held unreasonable as matter of law under Ind. Rev. Stat. 1881, § 3,770, which 89. Other special cases. The assured makes null and void a requirement in a not being bound, in case of loss, to notify foreign insurance policy that the notice the insurers of the time and nature of the of loss be given forthwith or within less risk, these being known to them, any than five days, and requires of the inmis-recital in these respects in his notice sured only that he use reasonable dilimay be rejected as surplusage. Walker gence in giving such notice. *Germania |