Regular readers of this blog may want to jump in and immediately answer that an insurance company cannot rescind auto coverage post-accident. We learned that principle in the blog post HERE about Torres v. Nev. Direct Ins. Co., 131 Nev. 531, 353 P.3d 1203, 2015 Nev. LEXIS 61 (2015). That is because Nevada's Financial Responsibility Law , NRS 485.3091 imposes compulsory coverage after the accident has happened. In the Torres case, the court ruled that the breach of the insured’s duty to … [Read more...]
Who Controls The Defense Of The Case? The Insured Or The Insurance Company?
June 27, 2023 by
In the case of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 131 Nev. 743, 357 P.3d 338 (2015), the Nevada Supreme Court determined that where the assigned insurance defense attorney encountered a conflict of interest between the duties owed to the insured and to the insurance company, the insured had the right to request independent counsel who, going forward, would be allowed to control the defense. But shy of pulling that trigger, how much say does the insured have regarding the control the … [Read more...]
A Tale of Two Lawsuits.
June 1, 2016 by
It was the best of times for Nevada Direct Insurance Company. It was the worst of times for injured parties Michael and Sharon Smith.You see, the Smiths were hurt in an auto accident with a Nevada Direct policyholder Kuperman. Nevada Direct tried unsuccessfully to enlist Kuperman's cooperation in dealing with the Smiths’ claim. When Kuperman failed to cooperate, Nevada Direct filed a declaratory relief action against Kuperman, the Smiths and another injured party, Ms. Fields claiming the … [Read more...]
Examinations Under Oath Meant To Prevent Unnecessary Litigation
March 26, 2013 by
In addition to detecting FRAUD, examinations under oath serve a number of other purposes. For example in the case of Yeo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 219 Mich. App. 254, 258, 555 N.W.2d 893, 895 (1996) the court explained that an examination allowed an insurance company to gather facts it would need to determine whether it would adjust the claim or defend a denial. In other words, examinations under oath also help prevent unnecessary litigation. In the case of Dietz v. Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire … [Read more...]
