#### National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Halfacre.

Opinion delivered February 6, 1928.

*186 Samuel G. Knight, for appellant.

Fred'M. Pickens and Goleman & Reeder, for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). The undisputed testimony shows that the local agent of the fire insurance company* having power to issue policies and collect premiums, was notified by the insured that a loss had occurred, and received from him a list of the property destroyed, made out upon a little book furnished by the agent for that purpose; that he notified the company of the loss, 'and the adjuster had the list of the property furnished the agent by the insured when he first called upon him relative to aii adjustment of the loss; that, during the negotiations for a settlement, although complaint was made that the proof of loss was not satisfactory, no refusal to settle was made on that account until the 28th day of June, when a formal verified itemized proof of loss was sent by registered mail to the company.

There was no reason to think that a refusal to adjust the loss or pay the claim would be made until that time, and the court properly held that the insurance company had waived the proof of loss, and that the notice given and the action taken by the insured in furnishing- the list of the property lost was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the policy. Fireman’s Ins. Co. v. Hays, 159 Ark. 161, 251 S. W. 360; Fireman’s Fire Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 122 Ark. 357, 183 S. W. 770; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wright, 163 Ark. 42, 257 S. W. 773, Fireman’s Ins. Co. v. Bye, 160 Ark. 212, 254 S. W. 465; American Ins. Co. v. Dannehower, 89 Ark. 111, 115 S. W. 950.

*187The proof of loss or list of property destroyed, furnished to the agent of the insurance company a few days after the fire and later found in possession of the adjuster, upon the first of his three visits to make the adjustment, was not refused as a proof of loss meeting the requirements of the insurance policy, nor any such objection made to it as amounted to its refusal as such, until what was thought to be the last of the 60 days provided in which such proof should be furnished. This being- the case, the insured was entitled to further reasonable time to complete the proof of loss. Planters’ Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 77 Ark. 27, 90 S. W. 283, 7 Ann. Cas. 55.

The undisputed testimony also shows that the. fire which destroyed the insured property continued into the morning of the 29th, and the law will not allocate the loss to any particular part of the time, nor consider the property destroyed before the cessation of the fire which consumed it. Such being the case, the itemized verified proof of loss was furnished within the time required by the policy, in any event,.

There is no merit in the contention that appellee refused to submit himself for examination under oath, long after the loss had occurred and suit had been filed for the recovery of the amount of the loss under the policy. As said in Conn. Fire Ins. Co. v. Boydston, 173 Ark. 437, 293 S. W. 730, such clause “did not contemplate such examination after the occurrence of the fire, with subsequent loss.”

We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. • •