Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Avoid UM / UIM Stacking By Meeting These Three Requirements

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...]

Stacking

In Nevada, a valid anti-stacking provision must satisfy three prerequisites under NRS 687B.145(1) ."First, the limiting provision must be expressed in clear language.""Second, the provision must be prominently displayed in the policy, binder or endorsement.""Finally, the insured must not have purchased separate coverage on the same risk nor paid a premium calculated for full reimbursement under that coverage."Accordingly, a limiting provision is void if it fails to comply with … [Read more...]

Got Questions?

These posts on the Mills & Associates Nevada Coverage & Bad Faith Law blog are published to provide useful insights on Nevada insurance law to our clients and other subscribers. Many times the topics are suggested by recent case law, or issues raised by litigation.As part of our ongoing effort to provide both timely and helpful information, we invite all our readers to submit issues which they would like to see addressed in future blog posts.Likewise, please submit questions … [Read more...]