Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Oral Arguments Re: Nevada Independent Counsel Leave Many Questions Unanswered

Cumis AggregateOn May 5, 2015, the parties made their final arguments to the Nevada Supreme Court on the issues of independent counsel in Nevada.  State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 64484.  Neither attorney strayed far from his script.  The justices asked only a few questions leaving us to guess at what the final decision may be.

State Farm’s attorney acknowledged that since insurance panel counsel represents both the insured and the insurance company that conflicts can arise.  He said that individual attorneys are fully capable of determining when a conflict has arisen.  As anticipated by William Barker HERE, the attorney advocated that the court reject Cumis and adopt a methodology similar to the one followed in Washington.  Tank v. State Farm, 105 Wn.2d 381, 715 P.2d 113 (1986).  In that state, when a conflict arises, the insurance company still gets to pick the attorney but there is no dual representation.  When actual coverage conflicts arise, the assigned defense attorney represents only the insured and not the insurance company.  State Farm’s attorney emphasized how the Cumis decision created years of chaos in California insurance defense litigation handling and that it took an act of the California legislature to straighten out the problems.  Pointing to that chaos, State Farm’s attorney argued that the court should not step in, but should allow the issues to be resolve by the attorneys or by legislature if necessary. [Continue reading]

Not Everyone Agrees That Nevada Will Follow Majority Rule Dismissing Negligent Entrustment / Supervision / Training Where Motor Carrier Admits Course And Scope

Negligent Entrustment

In an earlier post HERE, the Nevada Trucking Law Blog called attention to decisions coming out of the U.S. District Court for Nevada supporting the proposition that claims of negligent entrustment / training / supervision should be dismissed if the … [Continue reading]

Collateral Source Is Still Good Law Despite Tri-County Equipment Decision

Billed vs Paid

Following the California case of Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541, 257 P.3d 81, 128 CalRptr. 3d 658 (2011), the Nevada Law Blogs began wondering if Nevada would follow California’s lead and prohibit Plaintiff’s … [Continue reading]

Does Nevada Follow The Made-Whole Doctrine In The Context of Auto Coverage?

Make Whole

A local insurance adjuster asks whether the “made-whole” doctrine applies in Nevada in the auto subrogation context.  This is one more great question the that is addressed by the Nevada Law Blogs.  However, as you will see, the answer is tremendously … [Continue reading]

Is Your Company’s Intra-Family Auto Liability Exclusion Enforceable?

Teen Driver - Car Accident

Nevada law authorizes insurance companies to enforce exclusions that limit or eliminate intra-family liability for bodily injuries. NRS 687B.147. Or so said the Nevada Supreme Court in Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. v. Faehnrich, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 19, 327 … [Continue reading]