Which of the following was the result in Angela & Raul Ruiz v.Fortune Insurance Co.,the case in the text in which the plaintiffs claimed that the defending insurer was liable to them for a loss to their mobile home although the agency to which plaintiffs' premium was remitted no longer had an agency relationship with the defendant; and the defendant had not received the payment nor renewed the plaintiffs' policy?
A) The defendant was held liable to the plaintiffs because they had not been notified of the agency termination and the nonrenewal.
B) The defendant was held liable to the plaintiffs because even if the defendant sent a notice of nonrenewal, the plaintiffs did not receive it.
C) The defendant was held liable to the plaintiffs because its former agent was in possession of funds meant for the defendant, and it was up to the defendant to obtain the funds from the former agent.
D) The defendant was not held liable to the plaintiffs because of proof it had mailed the notice of nonrenewal, even if the plaintiffs did not receive it or did not read it.
E) The court ruled that a jury question existed as to whether the plaintiffs understood the meaning of the notification of nonrenewal and that if the plaintiffs did not understand its meaning, then they were entitled to recover from the defendant.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

According to the court, "The law is clear that an insurer's proof of mailing of a notice of cancellation to the insured prevails as a matter of law over the insured's denial as to its receipt. Fortune's [the insurer's] actual notice of cancellation to the Ruizes [the plaintiffs] was legally sufficient and binding, whether the Ruizes read or understood the import of such notice."

Which of the Following Was the Result in Angela