Are the first five letters from the adjusters privileged within the meaning of the rule?

The plaintiffs submit, with some force, that the first five letters from the adjusters are not privileged within the meaning of the rule because they do not contain an offer for settlement. When such an offer was made here, the letter in question was not so marked, nor was the only other letter from the adjusters written after the payment and before the expiration of the two-year limitation period. It seems clear that where the privilege exists, it covers not only the particular letter, but all subsequent parts of the same correspondence on both sides, notwithstanding that they are not expressed to be "without prejudice": see McLeod v. Pearson, supra. But here we have the reverse situation. The essential letter is not marked "Without Prejudice". The defendant seeks to cloak it with privilege by including it in a series, the earliest of which were so marked. In my view, those earlier letters are not privileged, even though they are so marked, and thus the defendant can obtain no assistance from them.