Power and Authority of Agents. Barre v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 76 Iowa, Eastern R. R. Co. v. Relief Fire Ins. Co., 609; 41 N. W. Rep. 373. 105 Mass. 570. 102.- The failure of the assured to 108. The company's agent, immediserve upon the company proofs of loss ately after the loss, without waiting for within the time usually limited by such preliminary notice, called for and took company for that purpose in its printed away the plaintiff's books and papers, forms will not prevent a recovery by the for the purpose of making an inventory assured for the breach of a parol con- of the loss, and the plaintiff obeyed all tract to insure or to issue a policy. *Ne-instructions of the agent. Held, evidence braska & I. Ins. Co. v. Seivers, 43 N. W. | from which a waiver of preliminary proofs Rep. 351; 19 Ins. L. J. 902; 27 Neb. may be inferred. Security Ins. Co. v. Fay, 22 Mich. 467. 541. 103. Power and authority of agents. If an insurance company, on notice of loss, refer the insured to their resident agent for settlement, and instruct the agent to procure a statement of the loss, he is thereby invested with full authority to receive such statement, and to extend the time for furnishing it, and if given within the time required by the agent, the condition in the policy requiring it to be made within a less time, is not broken. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schollenberger, 44 Pa. 259. 104. That the general agent can waive a forfeiture arising from delay or defect in the preliminary proofs. Owen v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 57 Barb. 518 (N. Y.) 105.- A local agent waives conditions requiring proofs of loss and suit to be brought within limited time by stating that the former are "all right," and loss would soon be paid. Ide v. Phonix Ins. Co., 2 Biss. 333 (U. S. Cir.) 106.- Assured's attorney met agent of the company on the street and said that proofs were ready except certificate, which he said it was doubtful whether he would get in time, to which the agent replied, it was not material, and to procure a certificate as soon as he could. Held, evidence of waiver. Crozier v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 2 Hannay, 200 (N. B.) 109.- An agent waives compliance with condition in regard to proofs by telling assured to obtain the information required after he should get home as soon as possible, and that that would do. Cann v. Imperial Fire Ins. Co., 1 Russell & C. 240 (N. S.) 110.— When assured is informed by local agent that "it is useless and loss of time to make up proofs, that company is bankrupt," it is a waiver. Pennell v. Lamar Ins. Co., 73 Ill. 303. 111. If, after time for furnishing proofs has passed, agent of company acts and speaks as if they had been presented in season, or if, while resisting claim upon his company, he places his objections entirely upon other grounds, and never alludes to the failure to furnish the proofs and expressly waives another condition, jury may infer a waiver. Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 3 Otto, 527 (U.S.) 112.- A local agent has no authority to waive condition requiring proofs of loss. Van Allen v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. 469; rev'g, 6 T. & C. 591. But so decided on the ground that the policy limited the power of the agent. See Steen v. Niagara Ins. Co., 89 N. Y. 315. And see subsequent appeals in Van Allen v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 397; aff'd, 72 N. Y. 604. No. 113. 113.- When assured is induced by the 107. The general agent of a foreign act or declaration of company's local insurance company, who fixes rate of agent, accustomed to receive and forpremium, has policies in blank, which he ward notices of loss, to delay the furnishfills out and issues, though he cannot ing of proofs, company is estopped from modify the essential character of the con- insisting upon such delay as ground of tract, can waive or modify the conditions forfeiture. Van Allen v. Farmers' Joint as to notice of loss and preliminary proof, | Stock Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 397; affi'd, 72 N. Y. for this makes no change in the substance 604 (on opinion of lower court). of the contract; and private letters to him 114.- The authority of a local agent limiting his power, not shown to the as- authorized to receive applications for insured, are inadmissible in evidence.surance and to countersign and deliver Power and Authority of Agents. policies does not extend to adjusting of only to receive proposals for insurance, losses, or waiving of proofs. The mere fix rates of premium, and issue policies, fact that such an agent assumes in a par- cannot waive the condition of a policy ticular case to do these acts cannot es-requiring a statement of loss. Smith v. tablish his authority. Bush v. West- Niagara F. Ins. Co., 7 N. Eng. Rep. 82; chester Fire Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 531; rev'g, 1 L. R. A. 216; 60 Vt. 682; 6 Am. St. Rep. 2 T. & C. 629; Lohnes v. Ins. Co. N. A., 144; 15 Atl. Rep. 353. 121 Mass. 439. 123.- A general agent of an insurance 115.- An agent having special author-company-unless restricted in his power, ity to adjust a particular loss cannot, by virtue thereof, adjust a different one, and whatever he may assert in reference to a different one does not affect the company. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith, 3 Col. 422. 116.— Although policy provides that proof shall be furnished at the home office, delivery to a local agent and retention by him without objection operates as a waiver. German Ins. Co. v. Ward, 90 Ill. 550. 117.- Delivery of proofs to general agent at his request is a waiver of any right to have them delivered at the home office of the company. Badger v. Phænix Ins. Co., 49 Wis. 396. and this is known to the plaintiff—can waive a statement of the loss, but only in the manner provided by the policy, although by the terms of the policy that was a condition precedent to recovery. Id. 124. The fact that local agents of an insurance company, who are not shown to have had any authority to adjust or agree to pay a loss, promised the insured that his loss would be paid, is no waiver of proofs of loss. Von Genechtin v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 75 Iowa, 544; 39 N. W. Rep. 881. company by a promise to pay the loss. Queen Ins. Co. v. Young, 86 Ala. 424; 5 So. Rep. 116. 125.- Special authority to an agent who is not the regular adjuster of an insurance company, to adjust loss and dam118.- Presentation to company's agentage, does not confer authority to bind the of list of articles destroyed with values, no objection being made as to form or otherwise, followed by an examination under oath, accompanied by an expression of satisfaction and that it was sufficient, and nothing more would be required, shows a sufficient compliance or a waiver. Zielke v. London Assurance Corporation, 15 Ins. L. J. 62; 64 Wis. 442. 126.- Where the insurer adopts the acts of its agents in waiving preliminary proofs of loss, and relies on an award rendered upon an arbitration required by the policy to be taken after proof received in due form, as a defense to an action to 119.- Waiver of proofs can not be in-recover the loss, he cannot deny the ferred from a promise by a local agent authority of the agents to waive the to notify the company of the loss. Enge proofs. *Carroll v. Girard F. Ins. Co., bretson v. Hekla Fire Ins. Co., 58 Wis. 72 Cal. 297; 13 Pac. Rep. 863. 301. 120. Tender by insured of his proof of loss to agent of a foreign company, who countersigned and issued the policy, sufficient, if he makes no objection. North British and Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Crutchfield, 16 Ins. L. J. 178; 7 West. Rep. 90; 108 Ind 518. 121. A local agent authorized to fix rates, countersign and deliver policies, subject to approval of company, has no authority to waive condition as to notice of loss and proofs. Bowlin v. Hekla Fire Ins. Co., 16 Ins. L. J. 305; 36 Minn. 433. 122. A local agent having authority 127. Such a waiver is not prevented by a provision in the submission to arbitration, to the effect that the appointment "is without reference to any question or matters of difference within the terms and conditions of the insurance, and is not to be taken as any waiver, upon the part of the company, of the said conditions in its policies, in case they elect to avail themselves of them." Id. 128.- Proof of loss is waived by examination of premises by the insurer's agent, who refuses to pay the loss. Fisher v. Crescent Ins. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 544. 129.- Waiver by agent denying liabil As Affected by Acts of an Adjuster. ity. Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Stein, 5 Bush, 652 (Ky.) See Nos. 265, 273. 137.- A local insurance agent authorized only to receive proposals for insur130.- Where a policy provided for ance, and to countersign, issue, and renew service of proofs of loss as soon after the policies and receive premiums, and who loss as possible, and that use of general was authorized by the secretary to make terms should not be construed as a waiver a draft for a loss to the order of the court of any condition in the policy, and that for the benefit of whom it might concern, the agent had no power to waive any of is a special agent, and not authorized to its printed conditions, an instruction that draw a draft in favor of the payee or delay in furnishing proofs is waived, bearer in full of all claims against the where the agent omitted to make objec- company; and a bank receiving such tions to the proofs on the ground of delay, draft cannot recover thereon. *Commerand kept them, is not reversible error,cial U. Assur. Co. v. Rector, 17 S. W. Rep. although it is bad practice to instruct the 878; 55 Ark. 630. jury to infer a fact from other facts. Wheaton v. North British & M. Ins. Co., 76 Cal. 415; 18 Pac. Rep. 758. 138. As affected by acts of an adjuster. The adjuster of the company disputed the assured's claims, and gave his opinions falsely concerning questions of law and fact between the parties, the assured having the same means of knowledge as himself, and threatened not to pay without suit, so that the assured hastily made an unwise and unjust settle 181.- Service of notice and proof of loss on a general agent of a fire insurance company is service on the company. *North America Ins. Co. v. McLimans, 19 Ins. L. J. 542; 44 N. W. Rep. 991; 28 Neb. 653. 132. A mere local agent of an insur-ment. Held, as the position of the adjusance company has no power, after issuing the policy, to waive conditions requiring proofs of loss. *Knudson v. Hekla F. Ins Co., 75 Wis. 198; 19 Ins. L. J. 235; 43 N. W. Rep. 954. ter is not fiduciary, but hostile, the assured cannot have relief against the consequences of his own want of firmness. Mayhew v. Phænix Ins. Co., 23 Mich. 105. 139.- The acts and declarations of an adjuster in the general scope of his employment are properly received in evidence and bind the company. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 73 Pa. 342; Bartlett v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 77 Iowa, 155; Brink v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 49 Vt. 442; Bowes v. National Ins. Co., 4 Pugsley and B. 437 (N. B.) 133.— A verbal waiver of proofs of loss by a local agent of an insurance company is not binding on the company, where the policy provides that agents have no authority to make any verbal agreement for or on behalf of the company, and that the company will not be liable for any agreement except such as shall be indorsed, signed, and dated in writing on 140.- While agents or adjusters the policy. Id. may have an implied authority to in134.- A provision in a policy of insur-vestigate into the origin and causes ance, that agents cannot waive "any con- of a fire, they do not have right in abdition," does not relate to stipulations sence of express authority to institute about proof of loss. *Loeb v. American criminal proceedings under a charge of C. Ins. Co., 99 Mo. 50; 12 S. W. Rep. 374. arson. Company is not liable in an ac135.- Conditions in a policy, defining tion for false imprisonment of the acby whom and in what manner proofs of cused, unless agent's act in instituting the loss shall be made, may be waived by an proceedings was expressly authorized or agent of the insured. *Parks v. Connecti- | subsequently ratified. Norman v. Ins. cut F. Ins. Co., 26 Mo. App. 511. Co. of N. A., 4 Ins. L. J. 827 (U. S. Cir.) 136.- Waiver of proofs of loss, made 141. The facts that an adjuster by an agent of an insurance company visited place of fire and made inquiries without notice to the insured of want of without authority from defendant and authority on his part to make the waiver, without knowledge of the plaintiff, are is binding upon the company. *Insur- no evidence of waiver of condition reance Co. of N. A. v. Forwood, 13 Ky. L.|quiring proofs within specified time. It Rep. 261. seems, that even if the plaintiff had As Affected by Acts of an Adjuster. known of the acts of the adjuster they could not have legitimately influenced his action or omission to act in respect to the proofs. Blossom v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. 162. 142.- Agent charged with duty of settling a loss as a necessary incident has power to dispense with those conditions of the policy which have reference to the mode of ascertaining liability and limiting right of action. Little v. Phœnix Ins. Co., 123 Mass. 380. 143.— Agent of the company was present at the fire, and next day assisted the assured in opening his safe and securing its contents. Notice of the event was immediately communicated to the company, who in seven to nine days sent out an adjuster who received proofs, and did not require any further or additional proofs. Held, sufficient to satisfy obligation upon insured to furnish proofs within reasonable time. Kennedy v. Ins. Co., 6 Ins. L. J. 359 (Tenn.) 148.- An adjuster authorized to adjust and settle the loss can do so with or without formal proofs and may consequently waive them. Perry v. Faneuil Hall Ins. Co., 11 Ins. L. J. 387; 11 Fed. Rep. 482. 149.- An adjuster having authority to take charge, management and control of an adjustment, and to ascertain nature, cause and extent of the loss, has power to waive proofs of loss, and does so by failing to object to paper furnished as such, and objecting to payment on other specified grounds. Etna Ins. Co. v. Shryer, 12 Ins. L. J. 768; 85 Ind. 362. 150. If the company's adjuster tells the attorney of assured that the company will not pay because of violation of the conditions of the policy and suspicious circumstances attending the fire, this is a waiver of proof of loss. McPike v. Western Assurance Co., 61 Miss. 37. 151.- If adjuster waives proofs of loss, the sixty days' period commences to run from the time of such waiver, notwithstanding assured may have subsequently actually furnished same. Eggleston v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 14 Ins. L. J. 365; 65 Iowa, 308. 152.- An adjuster waives proofs of loss by taking examination of insured under oath, at same time giving notice that nothing more would be required. Indiana Ins. Co. v. Capehart, 16 Ins. L. J. 53; 5 West. Rep. 669; 108 Ind. 270. 153. If an adjuster induces a belief in the assured that he will come again or will send blanks through the local agent, it is evidence upon which a jury may find a waiver as to time in furnishing proofs. Craighton v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 39 Hun, 319 (N. Y.) 145.- Personal investigation by an adjuster, aided by the insured, with an agreement in part, and final failure to agree, and leaving without any intimation that further proof would be required, may operate as a waiver of proofs. Mitchell v. Orient Ins. Co., 40 Ill. App. 111. 146.- Communications between an in- 154.— Where investigation by an adsurance company and its adjuster relat-juster who does not say anything to the ing to an investigation concerning a loss by fire, are privileged communications, and company will not be compelled to produce them in a suit for the recovery of the insurance. Knapp v. City of London Ins. Co., 29 L. C. Jurist, 233 (Can.) 147.- An examination by adjuster and investigation with an effort to agree with the assured as to the amount of the loss, will not of itself constitute a waiver of proofs of loss. Home Ins. Co. v. Sorsby, 12 Ins. L. J. 381; 60 Miss. 302. insured, does not operate as a waiver of statement or proof of loss. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co. v. Shimp, 16 Bradwell, 248 (Ill.) 155.- An agent of a foreign insurance company in adjusting a loss in the city of New York is not "transacting the business of fire or inland navigation insurance in this state," as these words were used in the statute of 1853, ch. 466, § 23. People ex rel. McCall v. Gilbert, 44 Hun, 522 (N. Y.) 156.- An adjuster has no authority, as As Affected by Acts of an Adjuster. matter of law, to bind the company by a waiver of forfeitures; and where his acts, if authorized, would amount to a waiver, it must be shown that they were authorized by the company before it can be held to be bound thereby. Hollis v. State Ins. Co., 65 Iowa, 454. 157.- General authority by a fire insurance company, given to an agent to adjust a claim of loss, raises the presumption that he has authority to do whatever he does in the matter. Brown v. State Ins. Co., 74 Iowa, 428; 7 Am. St. Rep. 495; 38 N. W. Rep. 135. 158.- An insurance company waives a forfeiture of a policy, where its adjuster, with full knowledge of the facts, continues to recognize the validity of the policy and enters into negotiations for a settlement, whereby the insured incurs expense or trouble. Oshkosh Gaslight Co. v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 71 Wis. 454; 5 Am. St. Rep. 233; 37 N. W. Rep. 819. 159.- Where an adjuster of the company came to the place of loss a few days subsequent thereto, and took from the assured a statement of the loss, made by the adjuster, and a few days thereafter, and subsequently, the assured caused letters to be sent to the company, inquiring what, if anything more, was necessary to perfect his proofs of loss, but to these he received no reply,-held, that he had a reasonable time after he learned that some-. thing more was wanted in which to perfect his proofs of loss. Miller v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 70 Iowa, 704. 160.- A waiver of notice and statement of particulars of a loss cannot be shown by the acts of an insurance agent who took the application, or of an adjuster, without proof of their authority. Barre v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 76 Iowa, 609; 41 N. W. Rep. 373. 161.- Acceptance by an insurance agent of an inventory of lost goods, and a partial adjustment of the loss, and an offer to pay a certain sum in satisfaction, is not a waiver of proofs of loss required by the policy if he, at the time, gives notice that he expects and requires such proof. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. v. Clancy, 71 Tex. 5; 8 S. W. Rep. 630. 162.- A fire insurance adjuster's investigation into the circumstances of a loss, an effort to agree with the assured as to the amount, and an offer to pay a sum less than the amount claimed, do not alone excuse the assured from furnishing proofs of loss; but where the adjuster makes several visits to the scene of the loss, and interviews between them are frequent, there may be circumstances which render it a question of fact. New Orleans Ins. Asso. v. Matthews, 65 Miss. 301; 4 So. Rep. 62. 163.- Where, after a fire, the investigating agent of the insurance company makes a personal examination of the loss on the premises, and writes a letter to the insured, denying the liability of the company, and making a direct and positive refusal to pay, and setting forth his grounds and reasons therefor, proof of loss is waived by such action of the agent. Fisher v. Crescent Ins. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 544. 164.- Where, after a fire, the insurance adjuster and general agent of the company stated to the insured that he need not furnish any proofs of loss, and that the adjusters would be there presently and settle the matter, service of proofs of loss is absolutely waived. *Bishop v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 30 N. Y. S. Rep. 600; 9 N. Y. Supp. 350; affi'd, 130 N. Y. 488; Van Allen v. Farmers' Joint Stock Ins. Co., 10 Hun, 397; affi'd, (on opinion below), 72 N. Y. 604. 165. The employment of an adjuster by the defendant before it knew the plaintiff's title was not a waiver of the condition as to title. * Security Ins. Co. v. Mette, 27 Ill. App. 324; Illinois Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mette, Id. 330. 166.— In an action on a fire policy the defendant is estopped from setting up a defense which is inconsistent with the acts of its adjuster, although there is a condition in the policy limiting his authority to bind it. * Rockford Ins. Co. v. Travelstead, 29 Ill. App. 654. 167.- An insurance adjuster is a special agent of limited authority, having no power to alter the contract between the parties, waive any of its essential conditions, or make any agreement as to paying loss notwithstanding the forfeiture. *Weed v. London & L. F. Ins. Co., 26 N. Y. S. Rep. 414; 22 N. East. Rep. 229; 116 N. Y. 106. 168.- An agreement by the adjuster, |