Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Policyholder Robert Sparks was sued by victims and families of an automobile accident in which Sparks was involved. Sparks's insurance company, Benchmark, filed an interpleader action, seeking permission to deposit the $30,000 policy limits with the district court for dispersal to the plaintiffs. Benchmark then filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a determination that once the court accepted the deposited funds, Benchmark would have no further obligation to defend Sparks in the underlying tort lawsuit. The district court granted Benchmark permission to deposit the policy liability limits but denied it's motion for summary judgment, determining that Benchmark's duty to defend Sparks extended beyond its tender of the policy limits. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the policy did not unambiguously alert Sparks that Bench could terminate its duty to defend him by depositing the policy's limits with the district court; and (2) that a policyholder in Sparks' position would reasonably expect his insurer to procure a settlement on his behalf or defend him until the policy limits have been used to satisfy a judgment entered against him. View "Benchmark Ins. Co. v. Sparks" 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

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.