Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pedro Gallegos was injured by David Gonzalez in a car accident. At the time of the accident, Gonzalez was driving a car rented from respondent Malco Enterprises, for which he purchased a liability insurance policy issued by respondent First American and managed by respondent Knight Management. Gallegos obtained a default judgment against Gonzalez. After Gallegos was unable to collect on the judgment, he sought a judicial assignment of Gonzalez's unasserted claims against respondents, which was granted. Gallegos brought the assigned claims, which related to Gonzalez's insurance policy with respondents, in a separate district court action. Respondents moved for summary judgment on the basis that the previous district court could not assign the right of action in a proceeding supplementary to the execution of the judgment, and thus, Gallegos lacked standing to bring Gonzalez's claims. The district court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment, vacating the earlier assignment order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) rights of action held by a judgment debtor are subject to execution toward satisfaction of a judgment and may be judicially assigned; and (2) Gallegos properly asserted a right of action assigned to him by another district court. Remanded. View "Gallegos v. Malco Enterprises of Nev., Inc." on Justia Law

After Clark and Sullivan Constructors (C&S), a general contractor, solicited bids for a public works project, Dynalectric, a subcontractor, submitted a bid to perform electrical work on the project. C&S incorporated Dynalectric's bid into its bid for the contract, and C&S was awarded the project. Subsequently, Dynalectric repudiated its obligations to C&S. C&S sued Dynalectric in district court under various theories of liability, including promissory estoppel. The district court entered judgment for C&S on its promissory estoppel claim and awarded C&S $2,501,615 in damages, which represented the difference between Dynaletric's bid and the amount C&S paid the three replacement contractors to complete the work. Dynalectric appealed, contending that the district court applied the incorrect measure of damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the determination of the appropriate measure of damages in any given case turns on considerations of what justice requires and the foreseeability and certainty of the particular damages award sought; and (2) the presumptive measure of damages for a general contractor that reasonably relies on a subcontractor's unfulfilled promise is the difference between the nonperforming subcontractor's original bid and the cost of the replacement subcontractor's performance. View "Dynalectric Co. of Nev., Inc. v. Clark & Sullivan Constructors, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2006, appellant’s vehicle was stolen from respondent hotel’s valet parking lot. Appellant’s insurer issued a check to appellant for the cost of the vehicle but not including the cost of customizations. Appellant filed a lawsuit in district court against respondent, alleging negligence and breach of a bailment contract and seeking damages exceeding $10,000. The district court determined that Nev. Rev. Stat. 651.101(1) shielded respondent from liability and entered summary judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed. The Court found as a threshold matter appellant to be a real party in interest with standing to sue because appellant was not fully compensated by his insurer for his losses and thus the principle of total subrogation did not apply. The Court also held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 651.101(1) did not protect respondent against liability arising out of the theft of appellant’s vehicle because the statute, which limits the liability of hotels for the theft or destruction of any property brought by a patron upon the premises or "left in a motor vehicle upon the premises," unambiguously places motor vehicles outside of its scope. View "Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of homeowners brought suit against respondent, a developer and general contractor. Respondent then filed a third-party complaint against appellant, its subcontractor, pursuant to the indemnity clause in their contract. During trial, the district court granted respondent’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury found respondent ninety-nine percent at fault, and the district court held appellant liable for the resulting judgment. Appellant appealed. At issue was whether an indemnity clause in a construction contract obligates the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for its partial negligence for constructional defects, regardless of whether the subcontractor is also negligent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the indemnification clause in the parties’ contract did not explicitly or expressly state that appellant would need to indemnify respondent for respondent’s own negligence but linked appellant’s indemnification duties to defects caused by appellant only. View "Reyburn Lawn v. Plaster Development Co." on Justia Law

Appellant Mildred Powell filed an insurance claim with respondent Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to cover damage to her house. Liberty Mutual denied the claim, stating that the damage was excluded under the âearth movement exclusionâ in Appellantâs insurance policy. Appellant took Liberty Mutual to the district court. The court eventually granted Liberty Mutualâs motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the âearth movement exclusionâ of the policy excluded coverage of the damage. Appellant challenged the district courtâs review of the policy, arguing that it was contrary to state law on a similar âearth movement exclusion.â The Supreme Court concluded that Liberty Mutualâs policy was ambiguous held in light of the applicable state law. The Court held that the district court erred in granting the company summary judgment, and reversed its holding. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2006, Respondent Cordillera Fund, LP, purchased shares in Appellant American Ethanol for $3 per share. In 2007, shareholders of American Ethanol sought to merge with AE Biofuels, and notified their shareholders of its intent. Respondent notified American Ethanol of its intent to dissent, and demanded payment for its shares. The merger was approved by the shareholders. When the merged company refused to pay, Respondent filed suit at the district court. Ultimately the issue for the district court to resolve involved the fair value of Respondentâs shares at the time of the merger. Appellants offered respondent $0.15 per share; Respondent maintained the fair value was $3 per share. The parties went to court because neither could agree on the value. The court entered a judgment in favor of Respondent, determining that $3 per share was the fair value. On appeal, Appellants contended that the district court abused its discretion in determining the fair value of the shares. The Supreme Court concluded that appellants did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion, and affirmed the courtâs ruling in favor of Respondent.