The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-10-28
sCHwABACHERL LOSS ADJUSTED.
Deduction for Excess OF Powder-Lons
Controversy Ended.

The insurance on the Schwabscher building
has at last been adjusted amcably by q COM
promise. The circumstances of the settlement
are tod in the following article in the Coast
Reuieu:
ter a controversy extending over ninety
days the loss OF the Schwaoacher Bros. ware
house in Seattle has been settled at a discount
OF 10 Der cent. from the face OF the policies. me
total insurance Was s3i>.5co IL was coDtended
that there had been u violation of tue policy
conditions by the insured in tee storage OF ex-
plosiyes. II was believed by the REPRESENTATIVES
OF many of the companies in interest that the
loss had been increased by an explosion. There
was talk OF resisting the claim in Sae courts,
but Tor reasons satisfactory TO themselyGs a
number of the companies concluded that the
defense was not strong enough. They therefore
accepted an offer OF settlement on basis OF
per cent off. Oae-third of the insurance in
vowed was settled on this basis. The remain
ing two-thirds. on the advice OF coun>el, held
out stifay Tor an exemplary settlement, claiming
that there was no legal liability. Finally the
offer OF the insured TO deduct 10 per cent. from
tue face OF the proofs on buildings, stock ana
fixtures was accepted. Under an agreement
with the insured the companies which nrst
settled Will receive a rebate equal to the differ
ence between ana IL per cent.
1he settlement OF this loss has engencered
some Ill feeling between the companies OF the
hrst part and the companies OF the second part,
or, rather, between their representatives.. Ii
VIII melt away soon, though, for 1t is evident
That both sides wers somewhat at fault, anu
that both sides based their action on grounds
deemed sufficient 1t may be doubted, too,
whether better settlement could have been Sc
cured had all the companies stood together IN
this matter, and the committee In charge pro-
less 10 believe that the deduction OF 10 per cent
''is sufficiently severe penalty for the viola
ton of tie terms OF the policies. such
matter, is all the committee undertook
to secure. All that now remains t.
make the settlement entirely satisfactory and
equivalent to united action is for the first pay
Ing companies, in accepting the sd iitional re-
bate gained By the course OF the other compa-
due proportion OF the expen .es incurred. Hav-
ing reaped the benefits OF the more favorable
settlement, this tender they no doubt Will make.
The evidence, as obtained at the investigation,
on which the resisting companies based their
refusal TO pay, was TO this effect: There was a
allowed in the policies. ana there was an explo-
sion which augmented the loss. 1t was not
Claimed that the loss fraudulent one. nor
was there any disposition 10 repudiate the claim
because there was no legal obligation TO pay it.
The avowed purpose was 10 secure a settlement
which, while imposing a penalty for violated
policy conditions, should correspond In the
amount OF the deduction TO the supposed aug
mentaton OF the loss by the powder explosion.
The evidence and the opinion of counsel were
cepted the first offer OF the insured. 1t was be-
lieyed that neither the evidence nor the legal
opinion would stand the test OF litigation. The
case OF Titus vs.. Glen Fails, y. u. was cited
i'll support OF the plea OF waiver of invaiidlty.
But after all that may be said one way or the
that II would have been better mad all the COM
panies stood together in this affair. There Is
urgent need OF such concert OF action IN the set
tement OF disputed claims. All should stand
or fall together, without lair prominence in
settlement or litigation.