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...]
Nevada Supreme Court Enforces Choice Of Law Provision In Mississippi Auto Insurance Policy
April 8, 2014 by
Randall and Toni Faehnrich lived with their two sons in Mississippi. The Faehnrich’s owned a Jeep. Mr. and Mrs. Faehnrich divorced and Mrs. Faehnrich decided to move to Las Vegas. After moving to Nevada but before changing the plates, registration and insurance, Toni Faehnrich crashed the Jeep. The Faehnrich boys were hurt in the accident.Randall brought suit against his wife Toni in behalf of their injured sons. In Nevada, it had been against public policy for a Nevada Auto Insurance … [Read more...]
Nevada Court Interprets California Family’s Auto Policy Using California Law Following Nevada Accident
September 11, 2013 by
Nevada often follows the lead of California when it comes to interpreting the law. But there are times when the law of the two states is irreconcilable. Take the case of Mr. and Mrs. Sotirakis for example. Mr. and Mrs. Sotirakis lived in California. They owned a home in California. They garaged and registered their cars there. The Sotirakis family bought their insurance from USAA. USAA issued the Sotirakis family its auto policy in California.As many Californians are prone to do, Mr. and … [Read more...]
The Nevada Supreme Court Reconciles Conflicts Between Nevada’s UM/UIM Law And An “Owned But Uninsured” Exclusion
March 8, 2013 by
In an earlier post HERE, we explained how the Nevada Supreme Court reconciled the conflict it found between Nevada’s Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Law, NRS 485.185, and an auto policy’s household exclusion. A few years later, the Nevada Supreme Court encountered the same type of conflict in a Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist setting. Like liability coverage, Nevada UM/UIM coverage has a compulsory element as well. As we explained in an earlier POST, Nevada auto insurance … [Read more...]
Household Exclusion Conflicts With Nevada’s Compulsory Auto Insurance Law. Nevada Supreme Court Allows Insurer To Enforce Exclusion And Prevent Payments In Excess Of Compulsory Minimum Limits
February 28, 2013 by
An adjuster recently wrote to the Nevada Law Blogs asking if there would be insurance coverage to pay a mother for the wrongful death of her child who died as a result of the negligence of her husband, the deceased child’s father. This question focuses on the household exclusion found in many auto policies. Household exclusions attempt to eliminate coverage when one member of the household sues another for negligence. At least in the Nevada auto realm, the answer to this question is found in … [Read more...]
