Pa. Cons. Stat. » 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. (VEHICLES) / Chapter 13
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1377 (2026)

  Judicial review.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1377.  Judicial review.

(a)  General rule.--Any person who has been sanctioned by the department under this chapter or whose registration or authority to issue registration cards or plates has been denied, suspended or otherwise sanctioned by the department shall have the right to appeal to the court vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure). The filing of the appeal shall act as a supersedeas, except for a warning or a revocation, and the suspension or monetary penalty shall not be imposed until determination of the matter as provided in this section. Upon application of the registrant and prior notice to the department, the court may grant a supersedeas from a revocation of registration or authority to issue registration. The court shall schedule the appeal for hearing upon 30 days' written notice to the department, and thereupon take testimony and examine into the facts of the case and determine whether the petitioner is entitled to registration, subject to suspension of registration or other sanction under the provisions of this title or departmental regulations.

(b)  Documentation.--

(1)  In any proceeding under this section, documents received by the department from a court or from an insurance company shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case. In addition, if the department receives information from a court by means of electronic transmission or from an insurance company which is complying with its obligation under Subchapter H of Chapter 17 (relating to proof of financial responsibility) by means of electronic transmission, it may certify that it has received the information by means of electronic transmission, and that certification shall be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such an electronic transmission.

(2)  In a proceeding relating to the suspension of the registration of a motor vehicle imposed under section 1786 (relating to required financial responsibility), the department's certification of its receipt of documents or electronic transmission from an insurance company informing the department that the person's coverage has lapsed, been canceled or terminated shall also constitute prima facie proof that the lapse, cancellation or termination of the policy of insurance described in the electronic transmission was effective under the laws of this Commonwealth.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; June 28, 1993, P.L.137, No.33; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1278, No.152, eff. 60 days)

 

2002 Amendment.  Act 152 amended subsec. (b).

Cross References.  Section 1377 is referred to in sections 102, 1374, 1376, 1786, 3753 of this title; section 933 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Fell v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 925 A.2d 232 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fell v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 925 A.2d 232 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). · cites it 9× “§ 1786(d)(3), [7] provides that an insured/vehicle owner, whose vehicle registration has been suspended because DOT has determined that the required financial responsibility has not been secured, has the right to appeal that suspension under Section 1377 of the Vehicle Code, 75…”
Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 4× “Turning to section 933(a)(1)(ii), the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over appeals from determinations of the Department regarding: (1) denial or suspension of registration pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1377; (2) denial, cancellation, suspension, or revocation of license or…”
Deklinski v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 938 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). · cites it 6× “75 Pa. C.S. § 1377(b)(2) (emphasis added); accord Fagan, 875 A.”
Choff v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 861 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). · cites it 6× “6 That section reads as follows: An alleged lapse, cancellation or termination of a policy of insurance by an insurer may only be challenged by requesting review by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Article XX of the act of May 17, 1921 (P.”
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Andrews, 600 A.2d 622 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1377 (emphasis added). The language of this section would seem to indicate that at the very least, the appropriate appeal period begins to run from the date of suspension.”
Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 2× “Turning to section 933(a)(l)(ii), the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over appeals from determinations of the Department regarding: (1) denial or suspension of registration pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1377; (2) denial, cancellation, suspension, or revocation of license or…”
Fagan v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 875 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). “Section 1377(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1377(b)(2). When submitted, the foregoing evidence (1) constitutes prima facie proof that the termination of an insurance policy was effective under the laws of the Commonwealth and (2) creates a presumption that the…”
Eckenrode v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 853 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “’ The relevant amendments to Section 1786 can be summarized as follows: (1) changing PennDOT’s burden of proof to showing that an uninsured vehicle was required to be insured and that it (PennDOT) received notice from the insurance company indicating cancellation; (2) adding the…”
Parnell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 90 A.3d 840 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “DOT’S submission of its certified packet, which included Licensee’s conviction on the summary offense for operating a vehicle without insurance, satisfied this prima facie burden.”
Dinsmore v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 932 A.2d 350 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1377(b). This type of evidence, when submitted by the Department, will constitute prima facie proof that the termination by the insurance company was legally effective and that the registrant’s vehicle lacked the required financial re *354 sponsibility coverage.”
Gomory v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 704 A.2d 202 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998). “§§ 6103 and 6109 and 75 Pa.C.S. § 1377(b). Included in the packet of documents was a certified copy of the January 4, 1997 suspension notice and certification that such notice was mailed to Gomory.”
Jennings v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 715 A.2d 552 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998). “However, unlike police department records sent to DOT, the Vehicle Code specifically provides for the admission into evidence of medical documents and insurance company documents sent to DOT for the purpose of proving the facts contained in the documents.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1377(a) — 8 cases
Fell v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 925 A.2d 232 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “§ 1786(d)(3), [7] provides that an insured/vehicle owner, whose vehicle registration has been suspended because DOT has determined that the required financial responsibility has not been secured, has the right to appeal that suspension under Section 1377 of the Vehicle Code, 75…”
Choff v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 861 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “6 That section reads as follows: An alleged lapse, cancellation or termination of a policy of insurance by an insurer may only be challenged by requesting review by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Article XX of the act of May 17, 1921 (P.”
Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 973 A.2d 453 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
Gary Barbera Dodge, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 700 A.2d 922 (Pa. 1997).
Heller v. Dep't of Transp., 19 Pa. D. & C.5th 395 (2010).
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1377(b) — 7 cases
Choff v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 861 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “6 That section reads as follows: An alleged lapse, cancellation or termination of a policy of insurance by an insurer may only be challenged by requesting review by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Article XX of the act of May 17, 1921 (P.”
Dinsmore v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 932 A.2d 350 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1377(b). This type of evidence, when submitted by the Department, will constitute prima facie proof that the termination by the insurance company was legally effective and that the registrant’s vehicle lacked the required financial re *354 sponsibility coverage.”
Gomory v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 704 A.2d 202 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998). “§§ 6103 and 6109 and 75 Pa.C.S. § 1377(b). Included in the packet of documents was a certified copy of the January 4, 1997 suspension notice and certification that such notice was mailed to Gomory.”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 812 A.2d 736 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
England v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 687 A.2d 425 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1377(b)(1) — 1 case
Parnell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 90 A.3d 840 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). “DOT’S submission of its certified packet, which included Licensee’s conviction on the summary offense for operating a vehicle without insurance, satisfied this prima facie burden.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1377(b)(2) — 13 cases
Deklinski v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 938 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “75 Pa. C.S. § 1377(b)(2) (emphasis added); accord Fagan, 875 A.”
Fell v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 925 A.2d 232 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). “§ 1786(d)(3), [7] provides that an insured/vehicle owner, whose vehicle registration has been suspended because DOT has determined that the required financial responsibility has not been secured, has the right to appeal that suspension under Section 1377 of the Vehicle Code, 75…”
Choff v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 861 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “6 That section reads as follows: An alleged lapse, cancellation or termination of a policy of insurance by an insurer may only be challenged by requesting review by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Article XX of the act of May 17, 1921 (P.”
Fagan v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehs., 875 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). “Section 1377(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1377(b)(2). When submitted, the foregoing evidence (1) constitutes prima facie proof that the termination of an insurance policy was effective under the laws of the Commonwealth and (2) creates a presumption that the…”
Eckenrode v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 853 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “’ The relevant amendments to Section 1786 can be summarized as follows: (1) changing PennDOT’s burden of proof to showing that an uninsured vehicle was required to be insured and that it (PennDOT) received notice from the insurance company indicating cancellation; (2) adding the…”
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.