Key Takeaway
Court ruling establishes that testimony of actual certified mail sending creates presumption of proper mailing, even without matching return receipt cards.
Legal disputes often hinge on whether proper notice was given to parties involved in litigation or insurance claims. One of the most reliable methods of proving that important documents were sent is through certified mail with return receipt requested (RRR). However, attorneys and claims professionals sometimes wonder what happens when they have proof of mailing but cannot match the certified mail receipt card with the specific certified mail tracking number.
A 2010 New York appellate decision provides important clarity on this issue. The case demonstrates that actual testimony about the mailing process can be sufficient to establish a legal presumption of proper delivery, even when traditional documentary evidence might be incomplete. This principle has significant implications for insurance no-fault cases and other litigation where proper notice requirements are critical.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Dune Deck Owners Corp. v J J & P Assoc. Corp., 2010 NY Slip Op 02739 (2d Dept. 2010)
“Here, the plaintiff established proof of actual mailing through the testimony of its vice-president, who personally addressed and mailed the required notices to the defendants via certified mail, return receipt requested (cf. New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d at 547-548; Tracy v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 234 AD2d 745, 748). The defendants failed to rebut this presumption.”
I never saw a case that involved actual mailing of an item via certified mail, RRR, when there was no proof correlating the certified mail card with the certified mail number.
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes that direct testimony from someone who personally handled the certified mailing process can create a prima facie case for proper notice, even without matching return receipt documentation. The burden then shifts to the opposing party to rebut this presumption. This ruling provides valuable precedent for situations where mailing procedures are questioned but witness testimony can fill documentation gaps.
