Calvert v. CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCH. INS.

The evidence that Reynolds mailed the application, properly addressed, to CRE creates a presumption that CRE received it.Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co. v. Mobil Equipment Co. II,Inc., 473 So.2d 1049 (Ala. 1985); Starr v. DoctorsHospital, 426 So.2d 826 (Ala. 1983); Currie v. GreatCentral Ins. Co., 374 So.2d 1330 (Ala. 1979); Harrellv. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Inc. Co., 287 Ala. 259,251 So.2d 220 (1971). CRE can rebut that presumption, but the question is one of fact. If the jury finds that CRE did in fact receive the application, and, for example, fraudulently denied having received it,…