Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Insurance Department
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
NARICK, Senior Judge.
The issue presented is whether the Insurance Commissioner erred in stating that Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Done-gal) could have strengthened the presumption, under the “mailbox rule,” that the notice it allegedly mailed was received if Donegal had presented evidence that the notice was not returned to sender. Because it did not, the decision of the Insurance Commissioner is affirmed.
The relevant facts are as follows. Donegal mailed two invoices to Michael and' Holly Rothberg (the Rothbergs) with due dates of October 16 and November 3, 1995. Donegal mailed the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Samaras v. HartwickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Sheehan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Jensen v. McCorkellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Novak v. PA. INSURANCE DEPT.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
3Cited by24 opinions
- Environmental Equipment & Service Co. v. Wachovia BankDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Geise v. Nationwide Life & Annuity Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- G.G. Skotnicki v. Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.