Nevada

Featured
No Right to Reimbursement Under Texas Law

In the first decision nationally to expressly address an issue of Texas law, the Court predicted that the Texas Supreme Court would, consistent with its prior precedent, find that "a unilateral reservation of rights letter cannot create rights not contained in the insurance policy which include the right to seek reimbursement of defense fees where there was no potential for coverage". 

Read More →
Coverage Dispute Over Trademark Name New York New York

(Expert) Dispute between a restaurant and casino over the name New York, New York, for alleged trademark infringement fell within the coverage of a 1986 ISO policy forum. As a full and misappropriation of advertising ideas and their style of doing business.

Read More →

CHOICE OF LAW

Choice of Law Admission of Extrinsic Evidence Insurer Allocation Pre-Tender FeesStatute of Limitations
Most significant relationship testFacts known to the insurerNot AddressedNot Addressed6 years
Williams v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 849 P.2d 265, 266 (Nev. 1993)Gary G. Day Constr. Co., Inc. v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co, 459 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1050 (D. Nev. 2006)
Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., No. 03:06-CV-00136-LRH-RAM, 2008 WL 1774981, at *2 (D. Nev. April 15, 2008) (“The Gray court made this point explicit by stating the following: “Since modern procedural rules focus on the facts of a case rather than the theory of recovery in the complaint, the duty to defend should be fixed by the facts which the insurer learns from the complaint, the insured, or other sources.” [Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d 168, 176-77] (emphasis added). … Rather, it would have been sufficient to state that the duty to defend arises whenever the complaint alleges facts that fall within with a policy's coverage.”).		(Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190)
Pre-Judgment Interest Late Notice Public Policy Bar Independent CounselAtty's Fees/Decl. Relief Action
Prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada as ascertained by the commissioner of financial institutions on January 1 or July 1, as the case may be, immediately preceding the date of judgment, plus 2 percent. The rate must be adjusted accordingly on each January 1 and July 1 thereafter Notice-prejudiceNot addressedUndecidedNot recoverable
(Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.130)Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept. v. Coregis Ins. Co., 256 P.3d 958, 964-65 (Nev. 2011)Crystal Bay Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 713 F. Supp. 1371, 1379 (D. Nev. 1989)
Executive Mgmt., Ltd. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 963 P.2d 465, 469, 476 (Nev. 1998)
Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 6205722 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2012)		Smith v. Crown Fin. Servs. of Am., 890 P.2d 769, 772 (Nev. 1995)