Burden of proof

The general form of the burden of proof fallacy is claiming that something is the case simply because no one has proved otherwise. However, I think there are situations where it's not unreasonable to do so, because sometimes you don't need direct proof of something being the case to suppose that it is. For example, if you apply for a job and don't hear anything from the company after a long time, it's probably safe to assume that your application has been unsuccessful.

Would insisting on proof of something actually being the case when a lack of evidence to the contrary may in fact be sufficient be an exception to the burden of proof fallacy, or a fallacy in its own right?

you don't need direct proof of something being the case to suppose that it is.

This is the idea that, in some cases, a lack of evidence where expected is evidence. Your not getting a call back after say two years is pretty clear evidence for not getting the job.

Would insisting on proof of something actually being the case when a lack of evidence to the contrary may in fact be sufficient be an exception to the burden of proof fallacy, or a fallacy in its own right?

One would have the right to insist on proof ("evidence," in most cases). The evidence would be the lack of something expected. The burden of proof still applies.