As reported HERE, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded in the case of Fire Ins. Exch. v. Cornell, 120 Nev. 303, 90 P.3d 978 (2004), that a homeowner’s carrier had no duty to defend or indemnify the parents of an adult child who committed statutory sexual seduction against allegations that the parents negligently supervised the adult son. In that case, the policy did not just exclude coverage for the intentional actor. The policy language was broader. The policy said that that there would be no … [Read more...]
Is An Intentional Acts Exclusion Ambiguous And Unenforceable Against A Co-Insured For Allegations Of Failure To Supervise The Intentional Actor?
April 7, 2011 by
Is Arson An Excludable Act Of Vandalism?
March 29, 2011 by
The real estate market in Las Vegas is struggling. Due to foreclosures and owners walking away from their loans there are many unoccupied single family homes. When wear and tear happens to unoccupied properties, delayed discovery can exacerbate the situation. Even worse, unoccupied properties can be intentionally damaged by people. Arson is one of those risks.Homeowner’s Insurance companies recognize these increased risks and will often try to limit their exposure related to intentional … [Read more...]
Got Questions?
August 17, 2010 by
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...]
The Nevada Supreme Court Says There Is No Need For A Causal Link Between The Exclusion And The Loss In Order To Enforce An Otherwise Unambiguous Exclusion
July 16, 2008 by
When it comes to an exclusion of coverage, the carrier is often arguing that the exclusion is enforceable. The person arguing for coverage will often argue that the exclusion is just a "technicality". In the case of Griffin v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (2006), each party took its expected position.In Giffin, Jensen’s plane crashed in Griffin’s backyard. Griffin got hurt. Old Republic wrote Jensen’s aviation policy. The Old Republic policy required the plane to have a … [Read more...]
