Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-9 (2026)
Proof of notice
✓ current as of July 2026
Proof of mailing of notice of cancellation, or of intention not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation to the named insured by a certificate of mailing, at the address shown in the policy, shall be sufficient proof of notice.
Codes, 1942, § 5670.8-105; Laws, 1970, ch. 450, § 5, eff. 7/1/1970.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1980–2011 · leading case: H. H. Henderson, Dwaine Lee Henderson, Cross v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., Cross, 620 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1980).
H. H. Henderson, Dwaine Lee Henderson, Cross v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., Cross, 620 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1980). “The primary flaw in USF&G’s position is that it relies upon resolution in USF&G’s favor of factual issues that are within the jury’s province. USF&G’s remaining arguments are not supported by the law.”
Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557 (Miss. 2011). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 83-11-9 (Rev.2011) (“Proof of mailing of notice of cancellation, or of intention not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation to the named insured by a certificate of mailing, at the address shown in the policy, shall be sufficient proof of notice.”
Willis v. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 481 So. 2d 256 (Miss. 1985). “" This language is sufficient to meet the requirements of Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-9 (1972) proof of notice requirement: Proof of Notice.”
Carter v. Allstate Indem. Co., 592 So. 2d 66 (Miss. 1991). “Insurers would thus be prudent to take whatever steps are reasonably necessary to ensure that a cancellation notice actually reaches the insured's last known address.”
Henderson v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 695 F.2d 109 (5th Cir. 1983). “2d 119 (1964); Miss.Code § 83-11-9 (1972). The jury in Henderson I necessarily found that the notice was not sent until after the accident.”
Branch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 759 So. 2d 430 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-9 states: "Proof of mailing of notice of cancellation, or of intention not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation to the named insured by a certificate of mailing, at the address shown in the policy, shall be sufficient proof of notice.”
Est. of Beinhauer v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 893 F.2d 782 (5th Cir. 1990). “Beinhauer’s initial mailing of a premium check would be immaterial, and Nationwide would be entitled to judgment.”
Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Westbrook Cooper (Miss. 2010). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-9 (Rev. 11 2011) (“Proof of mailing of notice of cancellation, or of intention not to renew, or of reasons for cancellation to the named insured by a certificate of mailing, at the address shown in the policy, shall be sufficient proof of notice.”
Unknown. “Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-9 (1972) (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.