Late Nunc Pro Tunc Motion Fails
Petitioner Failed To File A Timely Appeal Within The 30-Day Jurisdictional Period
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/contract-state-cancelled-business-closed-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-haowc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Post number 5354
In MP Notary & Tags, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, No. 992 C.D. 2024, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (May 7, 2026) MP Notary & Tags, Inc. had an Agent Services Contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation allowing it to process vehicle titles and issue tags. In December 2022, state police raided its offices, seized its business records and equipment, and the business closed.
FACTS
The company’s principal contacted the Department to obtain paperwork and temporary tags so the business could resume operations. The Department later emailed that an official termination notice would be mailed. On February 23, 2023, the Department mailed a notice terminating the contract based on alleged criminal conduct, fraud, and related charges. The notice was sent to the business address, which had already been shut down, so the company did not receive it until after the 30-day appeal deadline had passed. On July 26, 2023, the company filed a petition to appeal nunc pro tunc (a Latin legal phrase meaning “now for then”. It refers to a court action or order that applies retroactively to a date in the past. It is used to correct clerical errors, accidental omissions, or clerical delays in official records, ensuring past events are properly documented) claiming that the Commonwealth’s closure of the business prevented timely receipt of the notice.
LAW
The court explained that appeal deadlines are jurisdictional and ordinarily cannot be extended. A late appeal may proceed nunc pro tunc only in limited circumstances. To obtain that relief, the appellant must show:
1. extraordinary circumstances such as fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent circumstances causing the late filing;
2. filing within a short time after learning of the need to act; and
lack of prejudice to the opposing party.
The court also emphasized that a party seeking nunc pro tunc relief bears a heavy burden and must act with reasonable diligence once aware of the need to take action. A hearing on a nunc pro tunc petition is required only if the petition alleges facts that, if true, would be legally sufficient to justify late relief.
DISCUSSION
The petitioner argued that it should have been allowed to appeal nunc pro tunc because Commonwealth agents had illegally shuttered its business, which prevented it from receiving the mailed termination notice, and because it was denied an evidentiary hearing. The Department responded that the late filing was the result of the petitioner’s own negligence in failing to monitor its mail or arrange for forwarding, despite knowing an official notice would be mailed.
The court agreed with the Department. It reasoned that the petitioner had a duty to monitor its business mail or make alternative arrangements once the office was closed. The court relied on prior cases holding that failing to check mail at an unstaffed office or to arrange for forwarding constitutes negligence, not non-negligent circumstances. The court also noted that earlier suspension notices had been sent to the same business address and had been successfully appealed, showing the petitioner knew official notices would be mailed there. Because the petitioner’s own lack of diligence caused the delay, it did not satisfy the requirements for nunc pro tunc relief.
ANALYSIS
The court’s analysis turned on whether the petitioner’s untimeliness resulted from non-negligent circumstances or from its own failure to act reasonably. The court concluded that even if the business had been forced to close, that did not excuse the petitioner from the obligation to ensure receipt of important mail.
CONCLUSION
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the July 1, 2024 order of the Executive Deputy Secretary. It held that the petitioner failed to file a timely appeal within the 30-day jurisdictional period and did not establish the extraordinary, non-negligent circumstances required for a nunc pro tunc appeal. As a result, the Department’s termination of the Agent Services Contract remained in effect.
Because Petitioner did not appeal within the 30-day jurisdictional period.
ZALMA OPINION
Records can be cured with an nunc pro tunc motion or appeal. But, to do so, you must do so promptly and within the jurisdictional limits. Failure to do so in a timely fashion is a total failure and the contracts cancellation remained.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
