sured is misled by its intentional concealment to his

injury or expense.

Devens v. Mechanics & Traders' Ins. Co., 83 N. Y. 168.

RULE 44.

Waiver not Prevented by Assertion of no Waiver.

Waiver by the insurance company after a loss in demanding compliance with terms of the policy, requiring insured to do some act or incur expense on account thereof, with knowledge of facts constituting ground of forfeiture, is not prevented by adding to the demand "this company neither admits nor denies its liability, nor waives any of its rights under said policy;" or that the company does not waive any of its rights and defenses, but expressly reserves each and every one.'' 2

1. Home Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 47 Nebr. 138, 66 N. W. Rep. 278; Corson v. Anchor Ins. Co., 113 Iowa, 641, 85 N. W. Rep. 806.

2. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Morriarty, Tex. 37 S. W. Rep. 628; German-American Ins. Co. v. Evarts, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 300, 61 S. W. Rep. 536, writ of error denied, 62 S. W. Rep. 417; Marthinson v. North B. & M. Ins. Co., 64 Mich. 372; Granger v. Manchester Assurance Co., 119 Mich. 177. See Rule 51.

RULE 45.

Acceptance or Retention of Premium After Fire as Evidence of Waiver.

Acceptance or retention of the premium after the fire does not necessarily waive a forfeiture, where the premium was due and a part thereof earned,' but may estop the company from claiming that it had never incurred any liability;2 and where it is accepted after a fire, with knowledge of the facts, it is evidence of

waiver of forfeiture; and so it may be, in connection with other facts, evidence of waiver when payment of premium is requested, but not when request is by mistake of a clerk, the company immediately tendering back the premium received.5

1. Burner v. German-American Ins. Co.,20 Ky. L. Rep. 71, 45 S. W. Rep. 109, 27 Ins. L. J. 732; Alabama State Ins. Co. v. Long Clothing Co., 123 Ala. 667, 26 So. Rep. 655, 28 Ins. L. J. 924; Smith v. Continental Ins. Co., 6 Dak. 433, 43 N. W. Rep. 810; Palmer v. Continental Ins. Co., 31 Mo. App. 467; Robinson v. Ætna Ins. Co. (Ala.), 34 So. Rep. 18. And see Schimp v. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co., 124 Ill. 354.

2. Traders' Ins. Co. v. Pacaud, 51 Ill. App. 252.

3. Mechanics & Traders' Ins. Co. v. Smith, 79 Miss. 142, 30 So. Rep. 362; German Ins. Co. v. Shader, Nebr. 93 N. W. Rep. 972; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Boyer, 1 Ind. App. 329, 27 N. E. Rep. 628; Millis v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co., 95 Mo. App. 211, 68 S. W. Rep. 1066. And see Emery v. Svea Ins. Co., 88 Cal. 300, 26 Pac. Rep. 88; Schroeder v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 51 S. C. 180, 28 S. E. Rep. 371.

4. Walker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 156 N. Y. 628; Lutz v. Anchor Ins. Co., 120 Iowa, 136, 94 N. W. Rep. 274.

5. Ryan v. Rockford Ins. Co., 85 Wis. 573, 55 N. W. Rep. 1025. And see Mississippi Home Ins. Co. v. Dobbins, 81 Miss. 623, 33 So. Rep. 504; Mississippi Fire Assoc. v. Dobbins, 81 Miss. 630, 33 So. Rep. 506.

RULE 46.

Effect of Agreement in Settlement and Compromise.

An agreement of settlement and compromise not accepted by all parties, and never consummated, is not admissible to establish a waiver on the theory of recognition of the policy and its validity,' but may operate as a waiver of forfeiture when coupled with a new agreement to pay its amount.2

1. Houdeck v. Merchants' & B. Ins. Co., 102 Iowa, 303, 71 N. W. Rep. 354.

2. Concordia Ins. Co. v. Koretz, 14 Colo. App. 386, 60 Pac. Rep. 191; Tillis v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., Fla. 35 So. Rep. 171.

RULE 47.

Effect of Offer in Compromise.

A naked offer of compromise, made for the purpose of procuring a settlement of a pending controversy, and not containing any admission of a fact, is not admissible in evidence as a waiver of a forfeiture;1 it may be admissible if the only dispute is as to the amount of the claim.2

1. Strome v. London Assur. Co., 20 App. Div. 571, 47 N. Y. Supp. 481, affd., 162 N. Y. 627, without opinion, citing Smith v. Satterlee, 130 N. Y. 677. And see Pentz v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 92 Md. 444, 48 Atl. Rep. 139; Richards v. Continental Ins. Co., 83 Mich. 508; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Sorsby, 60 Miss. 302; New Orleans Ins. Assoc. v. Matthews, 65 Miss. 301; Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. McGreevy, 118 Fed. Rep. 415; Morris v. Hartford Ins. Co., 57 S. C. 358, 35 S. E. Rep. 572; Fink v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 60 Mo. App. 673; Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 93 U. S. 527.

2. Kahn v. Traders' Ins. Co., 4 Wyo. 419; Columbia PlaningMill Co. v. American Ins. Co., 59 Mo. App. 204.

RULE 48.

Authority of Local Agents.

Local agents, authorized to write and issue policies, and soliciting agents have no authority as such to waive a forfeiture after the occurrence of a loss; there must be some authority from the insurance company for such a purpose.

Merchants' Ins. Co. v. New Mexico Lumber Co., 10 Colo. App. 223, 51 Pac. Rep. 174, 26 Ins. L. J. 969; Robinson v. Ætna Ins. Co., 128 Ala. 477, 30 So. Rep. 665; Graham v. Niagara Ins. Co., 106 Ga. 840, 32 S. E. Rep. 579, 28 Ins. L. J. 442; Elliot v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 114 Iowa, 153, 86 N. W. Rep. 224; American Central Ins. Co. v. Bird's B. & L. Assoc., 81 Ill. App. 258; Traders' Ins. Co. v. Cassall, 24 Ind. App. 238, 56 N. E. Rep. 259; Lippman v. Etna Ins. Co., 120 Ga. 247, 47 S. E. Rep. 593. And see Quinlan v. Providence Ins. Co., 133 N. Y. 356,

31 N. E. Rep. 31; Bush v. Westchester Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 531; Lohnes v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 121 Mass. 439; Oshkosh Match Works v. Manchester Assur. Co., 92 Wis. 510. In New Jersey it has been held that a local agent authorized to fill up and issue policies has apparent authority to waive notice and proofs of loss. Snyder v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 59 N. J. L. 544, 37 Atl. Rep. 1022, 26 Ins. L. J. 905. See also Statement or Proof of Loss."

RULE 49.

Limitation on Authority of Agents in Policy no Application to

The limitation in the policy of the power of an agent to waive its conditions, has no application to an adjuster after the policy has become a demand against the insurance company; there is no limitation as to waiver of a forfeiture after the destruction of the property;1 such limiting conditions requiring written evidence or indorsement have no reference as to what is done or to be done after a loss, or are inoperative upon the theory of an estoppel when assured has acted in reliance upon acts or declarations of the company's adjuster.3

1. Roberts, Willis & Co. v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 64, 35 S. W. Rep. 955, writ of error denied, 37 S. W. Rep. 311; Loeb v. American Central Ins. Co., 99 Mo. 50, 12 S. Ŵ. Rep. 374; Tillis v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 35

Fla.

So. Rep. 171; Frost v. North British & M. Ins. Co., Vt. 60 Atl. Rep. 803.

2. Partridge v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 13 App. Div. 519, 43 N. Y. Supp. 632, affd., 162 N. Y. 597, without opinion; Strauss v. Palatine Ins. Co., 128 N. C. 64, 38 S. E. Rep. 256; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Baker, 94 Md. 545, 51 Atl. Rep. 184; Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Western Refrigerating Co., 162 Ill. 322; Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Stoddard, 197 Ill. 330, 64 N. E. Rep. 355; Wheaton v. Insurance Co., 76 Cal. 415; Springfield Steam Laundry Co. v. Traders' Ins. Co., 151 Mo. 90, 52 S. W. Rep. 238, 28 Ins. L. J. 760; Renier v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 74 Wis. 89, 42 N. W. Rep. 208; Dick v. Equitable Ins. Co., 92 Wis. 46; Jenkins v. German Ins. Co., 58 Mo. App. 210; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Chi

cago Ice Co., 36 Md. 102; Carson v. Jersey City Ins. Co., 14 Vroom (N. J.) 300; New Orleans Ins. Assoc. v. Matthews, 65 Miss. 301, 4 So. Rep. 62; Gans v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 43 Wis. 108; McFarland v. Kittanning Ins. Co., 134 Pa. St. 590, 19 Atl. Rep. 796; Gould v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 134 Pa. St. 570, 19 Atl. Rep. 793; Indiana Ins. Co. v. Capehart, 108 Ind. 270. And see Dwelling-House Ins. Co. v. Brodie, 52 Ark. 11; Dibbrell v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 110 N. C. 193; Smith v. Niagara Ins. Co., 60 Vt. 682; Harrison v. German-American Ins. Co., 67 Fed. Rep. 577; Baldwin v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 60 Hun, 389, 15 N. Y. Supp. 587; Washburn-Halligan Coffee Co. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 110 Iowa, 423, 81 N. W. Rep. 707; O'Leary v. German-American Ins. Co., 100 Iowa, 390, 69 N. W. Rep. 686, 27 Ins. L. J. 510; Snyder v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 59 N. J. L. 544, 37 Atl. Rep. 1022, 26 Ins. L. J. 905; Metcalf v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 21 R. I. 307, 43 Atl. Rep. 541; India River State Bank v. Hartford Ins. Co., Fla. 35 So. Rep. 228.

3. Flaherty v. Continental Ins. Co., 20 App. Div. 275, 46 N. Y. Supp. 934; Sergent v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 155 N. Y. 349, 49 N. E. Rep. 935, revg. 85 Hun, 31. In Michigan it would seem that the waiver clause or condition in the policy requiring written evidence may apply to an adjuster, though this is not clear from the case as reported; the opinion may have, so far as the precise point is involved, been intended to apply to the local agent rather than to the adjuster. The inference is strengthened by the case cited as authority which was decided as applicable to the local agent. See Wadhams v. Western Assur. Co., 117 Mich. 514, citing Gould v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 90 Mich. 302. In Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Western Assur. Co., 129 Fed. Rep. 610 (U. S. Cir.), it was held that waiver of proofs must be in writing, but this case seems to be substantially overruled by Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Kerr, 129 Fed. Rep. 723, C. C. A.

RULE 50.

Authority of Adjuster.

An adjuster, with authority to examine, investigate, and adjust a loss, has authority to waive conditions of the policy or forfeiture, on ground thereof, and does so by treating policy within apparent scope of his authority as valid and subsisting after knowledge of the facts; but such waiver cannot be predicated upon a mere visit of adjuster to scene of fire and when he does not see or have any communication with insured;2 but negotiations for settlement, offer to compromise, or