There were all kinds of attempts to defraud on the part of other
policyholders. One instance in which the California was interested was a
proof for a $16,000 loss on a policy covering on stock of dry and fancy
goods located in a building on Market street. I received a visit from
the policyholder who made a request for prompt payment. I explained that
our funds were being raised by assessments which were levied once a
month and that, if agreeable, we would pay him sixty per cent of his
claim and the balance in sixty days. This appeared to be satisfactory
and he left in a happy frame of mind. Thirteen thousand dollars of the
risk in question was ceded to other companies and we naturally filed
claims with the reinsurers for their proportion. The following day a
friend who was acting as chief adjuster for another office which was one
of the re-insurers on this risk, called upon me regarding this
particular claim. He laid upon my desk a photographic album and called
my attention to a large photograph of the building wherein the stock was
located. It was a two-story brick and the picture showed that the entire
front of the second story had, as the result of the earthquake, been
thrown into the street. This was taken before the fire had reached the
property. He stated that the authenticity of the photograph was
absolutely guaranteed and that in event of litigation, the testimony of
the photographer was available. He further stated that acting for the
re-insuring company, he would not follow the California for more than
sixty-five cents on the dollar. I borrowed the photograph and at once
sent for the claimant. He called the next day. It was found on
examination that he had made the statement to the general adjustment
committee that the property was not damaged prior to the fire.
Unfortunately, no affidavit was taken from him to that effect. With the
photograph before me, I realized at once that the claim was not an
honest one. I explained that the larger part of our policy had been