Nevada

Subscribe to Nevada

Answering a certified question regarding a matter of first impression, the Nevada Supreme Court has held that an insurer is entitled to reimbursement of defense costs expended in defense of an insured where a determination is made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and the insurer has clearly and expressly reserved the right to seek reimbursement in writing.  See Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Access Med, LLC, 2021 WL 936076 (Nev. Mar. 11, 2021) (en banc).
…
Continue Reading Nevada Supreme Court Holds Insurer May Recoup Defense Costs

Applying Nevada law, the Ninth Circuit has held that a professional liability insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify a doctor for a wrongful death action because the doctor’s guilty plea triggered an exclusion for willful violations of law.  National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Hampton, 2020 WL 6158314 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2020).
…
Continue Reading Doctor’s Guilty Plea Establishes Basis for “Willful Violation” Exclusion from Coverage in Wrongful Death Case

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, applying Nevada law, has held that the court’s prior favorable coverage determination was evidence that an insurer did not act in bad faith when refusing to defend or provide coverage under a policy.  My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2019 WL 1810956 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2019).
…
Continue Reading Prior Favorable Coverage Determination is Evidence of Good Faith

Applying Nevada law, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has held that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured charter school because a “Notice of Closure” constituted a “claim” first made before the policy period.  Argent Preparatory Acad. f/k/a Silver State Charter Sch. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1049384 (D. Nev. Mar. 4, 2019).
…
Continue Reading Charter School’s Notice of Closure Constitutes a “Claim” First Made Before the Policy Period

A Nevada federal district court has applied the “direct means direct” rule to conclude that losses an insured suffered from payment card chargebacks when certain employees made fraudulent charges on customers’ payment cards were only the “indirect” result of employee theft, and therefore not covered under the insured’s commercial crime policy.  CP Food & Beverage, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., No. 1:16-cv-02421-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Aug. 6, 2018).
…
Continue Reading Court Rules that “Direct Means Direct” in Crime Policy, Rejecting Proximate Cause Analysis

Applying both New York and Nevada law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that an insurer correctly denied coverage under its directors and officers liability policy based on the insured v. insured exclusion.  Intelligent Digital Sys. L.L.C. et al. v. Beazley Ins. Co., 2017 WL 4127540 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2017).  This conclusion was reached despite arguments that the exclusion was ambiguous, or, in the alternative, that because the company’s bylaws were not followed, the claimant was not “duly elected or appointed” as a director of the company under the meaning of the Policy.
…
Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Judgment That Insured v. Insured Exclusion Bars Coverage After Jury Finds Plaintiff Was Duly Elected or Appointed as a Director

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a decision in favor of an insurer, holding that the business enterprise and trust exclusions in a lawyers professional liability policy barred coverage for a suit alleging self-dealing by the insured attorney and his firm. Christensen v. Darwin Nat’l Assurance Co., No. 14-15914 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2016). Wiley Rein represented the insurer before the district court and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.…
Continue Reading No Coverage for Lawyer’s Alleged Self-Dealing