his alleged cause of action from one directly on the policy, to one founded on an alleged compromise and an agreement to pay the amount of the same. Such a new undertaking cannot be separated from the policy, or from its terms and stipulations, but must be enforced, if enforced at all, with full reference to the original contract itself; such a promise cannot be introduced by amendment after the expiration of the time limited in the policy.

Grier v. Northern Assur. Co., 183 Pa. St. 334, 39 Atl. Rep. 10.

RULE 25.

When Companies Have Obtained Injunction Against Insured He May Have Relief by Cross-Bill.

Where an insurance company has filed a bill in equity to set aside an award of appraisers on ground of fraud, and obtained an injunction restraining the insured from proceeding on the award or policy, the assured may obtain full relief by filing a cross-bill setting up the fact, and the court having jurisdiction will retain it for all purposes and the limitation clause in the policy will not be allowed under the circumstances to defeat the assured.

North British & M. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 70 Fed. Rep. 429, 25 U. S. App. 443, 17 C. C. A. 175.

RULE 26.

Effect of Interpleader by a Third Party.

Where a third party, a judgment creditor, interpleads and claims insurance moneys in a suit brought

by the assured, and before trial the plaintiff discontinues his action, and it proceeds as between the company and the interpleader, the latter is barred by the limitation clause in the policy if he did not commence his proceeding within limited time,' but an intervenor, claiming an interest in the proceeds of the insurance, who becomes a party to an action pending and continued by the assured, is not barred.2

1. American Ins. Co. v. Buford Implement Co., 8 Kans. App. 36, 54 Pac. Rep. 6.

2. Stevens v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 69 Iowa, 658.

RULE 27.

Waiver of the Limitation.

The limitation clause is waived by a promise to pay or to adjust or settle without suit;1 and so by negotiations for a settlement tending to induce belief that claim will be amicably settled without suit; but mere negotiation with the assured, who has ample opportunity to commence suit but neglects to do so, does not waive the limitation clause; it is only when the requirements or negotiation by the insurance company causes or induces the delay in commencing suit that there is a waiver. A waiver can be inferred only from what occurs during the limited period," and need not be evidenced in writing."

1. Steel v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 715, 2 C. C. A. 463, 22 Ins. L. J. 7; Galloway v. Standard Ins. Co., 45 W. Va. 237, 31 S. E. Rep. 969, 28 Ins. L. J. 125; Metcalf v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 21 R. I. 307, 43 Atl. Rep. 541; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Amos, 98 Ga. 533, 25 S. E. Rep. 575. And see Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Chestnut, 50 Ill. 111; Solomon v. Metropolitan Ins. Co.,

42 N. Y. Super. 22; Horst v. City of London Ins. Co., 73 Tex. 67, 11 S. W. Rep. 148.

2. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Rad Bila Hora, 41 Nebr. 21, 59 N. W. Rep. 752; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 53 Ill. App. 273; Derrick v. Lamar Ins. Co., 74 Ill. 404; Burlington Ins. Co. v. Toby, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 425, 30 S. W. Rep. 1111; David v. Oakland Home Ins. Co., 11 Wash. 181, 39 Pac. Rep. 443, 24 Ins. L. J. 348; Scottish U. & N. Ins. Co. v. Enslie, 78 Miss. 157, 28 So. Rep. 822; Alten v. McFall, 89 Fed. Rep. 463; Grant v. Lexington Ins. Co., 5 Ind. 23; Allemannia Ins. Co. v. Peck, 133 Ill. 220, 24 N. E. Rep. 538; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. McGregor, 63 Tex. 399; Home Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 93 Ill. 271; Martin v. State Ins. Co., 44 N. J. L. 485; Mickey v. Burlington Ins. Co., 35 Iowa, 174; Black v. Winneshiek Ins. Co., 31 Wis. 74; Curtis v. Home Ins. Co. (U. S. Cir.), 1 Biss. 485; Thompson . Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 287; Little v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 123 Mass. 389; Brown v. Commercial Ins. Co., 21 App. D. C. 325; McArdle v. German Alliance Ins. Co., App. Div. N. Y. Supp. 485.

90

3. Allemannia Ins. Co. v. Little, 20 Ill. App. 431; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Labcher, 20 Ill. App. 450; Garido v. American Central Ins. Co. (Cal.), 8 Pac. Rep. 512, 16 Ins. L. J. 151; Garretson v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 65 Iowa, 468; McFarland v. Peabody Ins. Co., 6 W. Va. 425; National Ins. Co. v. Brown, 128 Pa. St. 386; Ripley v. Etna Ins. Co., 30 N. Y. 136.

4. Dibbrell v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 110 N. C. 193, 14 S. E. Rep. 783; Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Western Refrigerating Co., 162 Ill. 322, 327; Thompson v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 287, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1019; Bish v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 69 Iowa, 184; Horst v. London Ins. Co., 73 Tex. 67, 11 S. W. Rep. 148; Eggleston v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 65 Iowa, 308; Bonnert v. Insurance Co., 129 Pa. St. 558; Peoria Ins. Co. v. Hall, 12 Mich. 202; Mayor v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. 537, affd.. 39 N. Y. 45; Barnum v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 97 N. Y. 188; Ames v. New York Union Ins. Co., 14 N. Y. 253; Black v. Winneshiek Ins. Co., 31 Wis. 74; Little v. Phoenix Ins. Co.. 123 Mass. 380, 389; Underwriters' Agency v. Sutherlin, 55 Ga. 266; Frels v. Farmers' Ins. Co., Wis. 98 N. W. Rep. 522. 5: Everett v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 142 Pa. St. 332, 21 Atl. Rep. 819.

6. Hutchinson v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 143, 26 N. E. Rep. 439; Dwelling-House Ins. Co. v. Brodie, 52 Ark. 11, 11 S. W. Rep. 1016; Dibbrell v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 110 N. C. 193, 14 S. E. Rep. 783.

RULE 28.

No Waiver when Insured Has Ample Opportunity to Commence Suit and Delays it.

Where assured has right by denial of liability after negotiation or upon ceasing of negotiation to commence suit at once, having ample opportunity and delays doing so until after the expiration of the time prescribed, he cannot claim that negotiations caused the delay, or that they amount to a waiver of same;1 while denial of liability may be evidence of a waiver of conditions precedent to a loss becoming due and payable, it is not evidence of waiver of condition prescribing time within which suit must be brought.2

1. Lentz v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 96 Mich. 445, 55 N. W. Rep. 993, 22 Ins. L. J. 838; John Morrill & Co. v. New England Ins. Co., 71 Vt. 281, 44 Atl. Rep. 358. And see Ripley v. Etna Ins. Co., 30 N. Y. 136; Garretson v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 65 Iowa, 468; Blanks v. Insurance Co., 36 La. Ann. 599; De Grove v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 594; Steel v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 715, 2 C. C. A. 463; Universal Ins. Co. v. Weiss, 106 Pa. St. 20; Allen v. Dutchess Co. Ins. Co., 95 App. Div. 86, 88 N. Y. Supp. 530. And see Rule 27. 2. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Barr, 94 Pa. St. 345.

RULE 29.

Waiver by Providing Fund for Payment - Insolvent Company.

The limitation clause is waived by an insolvent insurance company providing a fund for the payment of the claim to the extent of such fund.

Re St. Paul German Ins. Co., 58 Minn. 163, 59 N. W. Rep. 996, 24 Ins. L. J. 130. And see Pennell v. Lamar Ins. Co., 73 Ill. 303.

RULE 30.

Waiver in Appraisal - Estoppel.

Dilatory action of appraisers operates as a waiver of the limitation clause; in such a case both parties are responsible for the acts of the appraiser and umpire; and so the insurance company is estopped where it has induced the delay in commencing suit by promising an appraisal.2

1. Austen v. Niagara Ins. Co., 16 App. Div. 86, 45 N. Y. Supp. 106. And see Williams v. German Ins. Co., 90 App. Div. 413, 86 N. Y. Supp. 98; Fritz v. British-American Assur. Co., 208 Pa. St. 268, 57 Atl. Rep. 573.

2. Goodwin v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 118 Iowa, 601, 92 N. W. Rep. 894.

RULE 31.

Waiver by Local Agent or Adjuster.

Where a local agent negotiates with the insured for a settlement and thereby induces him to delay the commencement of the suit, it is evidence of waiver of the limitation clause or of fraud as an estoppel;1 and same rule applies to an adjuster;2 but neither a local agent nor an adjuster merely as such have authority to waive the limitation clause; there should be some evidence of authority; or ratification;5 but authority may be implied from authority to adjust and settle;" and is implied in case of an officer of the company.

1. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Western Refrigerating Co., 162 Ill. 322, 44 N. E. Rep. 746; German Ins. Co. v. Amsbaugh, 8 Kans. App. 197, 55 Pac. Rep. 481; Underwriters' Agency v. Sutherlin, 55 Ga. 266.

2. Underwriters' Agency v. Sutherlin, 55 Ga. 266; Little v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 123 Mass. 380.

3. Underwriters' Agency v. Sutherlin, 55 Ga. 266.

4. Insurance Co. v. Brodie, 52 Ark. 11; Barry & Finan Lumber Co. v. Citizens' Ins. Co., Mich. 98 N. W.

Rep. 761.