Gidget Swanson claimed injury from a motor vehicle accident.  She said that a red car hit her from behind and pushed her into the car ahead of her.  She said that the red car drove away and was never identified.  She presented an uninsured motorist claim to her auto insurance company Acuity.  The claim was not resolved and went to trial.   At trial, a jury found Acuity liable for compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000.  The jury said that Acuity had breached its contract with Ms. Swanson, that it had breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealin ..read more

In October 2017, Ronald Law was involved in a motor vehicle accident.  In June 2021, he filed a Complaint and then an Amended Complaint against Progressive (the tortfeasor’s insurer) and against Progressive’s adjuster.  The Complaint alleged: Negligence; Abuse of Process; Fraud; Violation of HIPAA and Patient Confidentiality Laws, Statutes, Regulations and Practices; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”); Defamation; Injurious Falsehood; and Fraudulent Concealment. Progressive filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(5).  Progressive argued that direct a ..read more

It was a terrible fire.  On November 21, 1980, 85 people died when a refrigerated pastry display caught fire at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.  The Grand Hotel Gift Shop was destroyed in the fire.  The Gift Shop suffered almost a $1,000,000 in business interruption damages.   The Gift Shop sued its insurance broker, and the insurance company that wrote its business interruption insurance, Granite State Insurance.  Prior to trial, the Gift Shop settled with the broker and resolved several of its claims with Granite State.   At trial, the Gift Shop hoped to p ..read more

The Nevada Law Blogs has treated the question of Approval of Compromise of Minor’s Claim a few times over the years.  For a little background, see  HERE and HERE.   The question today is what authority does the Court have when it comes to approving Petitions for Approval of Compromise of Minor’s Claims pursuant to NRS 41.200?  The answer is found in the case of Haley v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 128 Nev. 171, 273 P.3d 855, 2012 Nev. LEXIS 31, 128 Nev. Adv. Rep. 16, 2012 WL 1137127.  It is a sad case.   A mother died, giving birth to her daught ..read more

John Lanza was hurt in a motor vehicle accident.  He settled with the underlying tortfeasor and brought suit against his UIM carrier Progressive Direct.   One issue was whether he would be allowed to claim future damages based upon headaches, neck pain and back pain.  He wanted to recover for the future care he received.  He said that he would have future pain and suffering.  He also claimed that he would lose income based upon time lost at work while seeking that future care.   When discovery closed, Lanza had not identified a retained expert that would ..read more

Wilma Winters died.  Ms. Winters’ Estate claimed via its executrix Ms. Newell that the Estate was the owner of certain real property.   Two companies, via their trustee, A.R. Salman, filed a quiet title action against same real property that was claimed by the Winters Estate.   In its opposition, the Estate argued that the Complaint must be dismissed because Mr. Salman, a non-lawyer, could not represent the corporations.  In the companies’ replies, Ms. Salman stated that the companies were not corporations but were trusts.  Therefore, he argued, that he could ..read more

As of December 1, 2023, FRE 702 will change.  The new rule, with redline changes is as follows: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and met ..read more

In the case of Bish v. Guaranty Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 Nev. 133; 848 P.2d 1057; 1993 Nev. LEXIS 26, the Nevada Supreme Court examined the question of what is an “occurrence”. The facts are these.   Four-year-old Christina Rose was playing on the sidewalk near the driveway of the neighbor, Ms. Alderson.  At that moment, Ms. Alderson chose to back her vehicle out of the drive.  Ms. Alderson accidently backed over the child.  A neighbor saw the accident and screamed.  Ms. Alderson put her vehicle in drive and accidently drove over Christina Rose a second time.  Chr ..read more

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 cooperate was not enough to allow the insurance company to escape responsibility under the policy ..read more

Gregory Lioce was involved in a multi-vehicle traffic crash.  Identifying the at-fault driver was difficult.  Gregory Lioce argued that Dana Cohen changed lanes into him.  Dana Cohen said Mr. Lioce turned left into her.  Mr. Lioce was then rear-ended by John Wilson, who argued that he was not negligent because he had been cut off.   In closing at trial, counsel for Wilson argued in favor of the jury sending a message.  Counsel said: the only way that people and their lawyers will stop bringing cases like this is if juries start saying: No. Enough is enough. I ..read more