A common motivator of many bad faith plaintiffs is anger. The insured's feelings are hurt because he or she feels that the claim was improperly handled. Usually that anger translates into a cause of action for emotional distress.The Nevada Supreme Court reaffirmed its position regarding the level of proof necessary to successfully prosecute an emotional distress claim in the recent case of Betsinger v. D.R. Horton, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 17, 232 P.3d 433, (May 27, 2010). In that case, the … [Read more...]
Archives for 2010
Caution: Watch Your “Step-Down”
February 25, 2010 by
“Step-Down” provisions in insurance policies are becoming more and more common. When I speak about a “Step-Down” provision, I am talking about policy language that purports to reduce a higher policy limit to the amount of the Financial Responsibility limit allowed by state law.From an underwriting standpoint, “Step-Down” provisions make sense. Let’s say a carrier wants to “Step-Down” the liability coverage for drivers who are permitted users of the vehicle but are not rated drivers on the … [Read more...]
Rental Car Agencies Are Not Insurance Companies And Are Not Subject To The “Must Offer” Obligations Of NRS 687B.145 (2) And (3)
February 1, 2010 by
NRS 687B.145 (2) and (3) obligate “insurance companies transacting motor vehicle insurance” to offer its insureds Uninsured / Underinsured and Medical Payments coverage to its insureds in and amounts equal to the amount of liability coverage that the insured carries. If there is no signed waiver on a form approved by the insurance commissioner, then that policy is deemed to carry UM/UIM and MP coverage. See our blog post HERE for a discussion on this topic. So then the question came up: Is a … [Read more...]
One Injured Passenger + One Negligent Driver + Only One Policy = One Liability Recovery And Zero UIM. . . . . . . . But One Injured Passenger + Two Negligent Drivers + Two Separate Policies = Two Liability Recoveries + UIM Availability
January 27, 2010 by
Prior to the recent opinion of Delgado v. American Family Ins. Group, 125 Nev. 564, 217 P.3d 563 (2009), the law seemed clear on the issue of whether a passenger could recover liability benefits and underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from the same policy. In the prior Nevada Supreme Court opinions of Peterson v. Colonial Insurance Co., 100 Nev. 474, 686 P.2d 239 (1984), and Baker v. Criterion Insurance, 107 Nev. 25, 805 P.2d 599 (1991) the Court had said that it would not allow a recovery on … [Read more...]
“You Heard It Right The First Time!” The Nevada Supreme Court Reaffirms and Clarifies the Salas Decision In Hall V. Enterprise Leasing Co.
January 11, 2010 by
In a previous blog post HERE, we discussed the case of Alamo Rent-A-Car v. State Farm. The Alamo decision concluded that as between the personal liability coverage of the driver and the statutorily created rental car coverage or self-insurance of NRS 482.305(1), the personal liability coverage of the driver is primary. Unanswered in the Alamo opinion was what would happen if the claimant’s damages were to exceed the policy limit of the driver’s personal policy. That issue was addressed in … [Read more...]
