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)