When Nevada courts decide whether an expert witness will be allowed to testify, they do not look to the rules set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). See, Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 114 Nev. 1468, 970 P.2d 98 (1998). Instead, the Nevada Supreme Court is developing its own set of rules to determine whether an expert can give opinion testimony to the jury.As we said in our post a few years back, HERE, the case … [Read more...]
Archives for January 2012
An Auto Policy Will Cover The Insured When Driving Someone Else’s Car Unless That Car Is Available For The Insured’s “Regular Use”. Whether The Car Is Available For The Insured’s Regular Use Is Normally A Question Of Fact. But. . .
January 6, 2012 by
. . . EVEN THE SLIGHTEST RESTRICTION TO THE LIMITATION OF USE WILL GIVE RISE TO A DUTY TO DEFENDMost auto policies provide an insured person coverage when driving another person's vehicle with that person’s permission. There is however an exception to that rule. The exception is that the "non owned" vehicle must not be "available or furnished for the regular use" of the insured person. There have been two Nevada cases that have considered this issue. Let’s explore both.The earlier … [Read more...]
An Insured Cannot Recover UM And UIM Benefits From The Same Policy
January 3, 2012 by
In the case of Hall v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 105 Nev. 19, 768 P.2d 844 (1989) the Nevada Supreme Court considered the question of whether a claimant could recover both uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) benefits from the same policy. Ruby Hall was walking along minding her own business when two negligent drivers collided. The cars struck Ruby causing her injury. One of the drivers was uninsured and the other was underinsured.Ruby's father had foresight to buy an insurance policy that … [Read more...]
