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 P.3d 1061 (2014). However, as we mentioned in our explanation of Faehnrich, the Court made only a passing reference to NRS 687B.147, the law that allows such a limitation or exclusion. The court did not provide any sort of analysis of the law. And … [Read more...]
Nevada Law Blogs See Lots Of Insightful Comments On Nevada’s Cumis Counsel Case
March 24, 2015 by
Regular readers of the Nevada Law Blogs have followed our summaries of all of the briefs filed in the Nevada case of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 64484. Hopefully, the Hansen case will tell us if Nevada will follow California’s Cumis decision, if it will adopt a standard used by another state or if it will await a legislative solution to the situation. Like the briefs themselves, comments on social media have run the gamut. State Farm’s brief … [Read more...]
Mike Mills Admitted To Arizona State Bar
March 20, 2015 by
The Arizona Strip is nothing like the Las Vegas Strip! The world knows the Las Vegas Strip as a place of glamour and glitz. In contrast, few even know of the Arizona Strip or how important it is to transportation in the U.S. The Arizona Strip is found in the northwest corner of Arizona. It is that small piece of Arizona that is north of the Grand Canyon but south of Utah and East of Nevada. Anyone who drives the I-15 knows the Arizona Strip as the 30 miles of road that takes you from … [Read more...]
Break Buck’s Spell. Pursue Passenger Negligence.
March 4, 2015 by
Don’t be surprised if a Nevada Plaintiff’s attorney tries to cast a spell on you. The attorney may repeat over and over again, “My client is a passenger. He is not liable for the accident.” By reciting this incantation, the attorney is hoping to enchant you into believing that the magic of the Buck v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 105 Nev. 756, 783 P.2d 437 (1989) protects all auto passengers, especially hers, from any accusations of comparative fault. For those of you who are familiar with Nevada … [Read more...]
Avoid UM / UIM Stacking By Meeting These Three Requirements
February 19, 2015 by
Nevada law authorizes auto insurance companies to avoid stacking their uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage. But before a court will enforce a policy’s anti-stacking provision the company must meet three requirements. See Neumann v. Standard Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 699 P.2d 101, 103 (Nev. 1985). The three requirements are: (1) Clarity; (2) Prominence; and, (3) The insured cannot have paid full premiums on each of the separate risks covered by the … [Read more...]
