Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 686A.030 (2026)

Misrepresentation and false or misleading advertising of policies prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 686A.030 Misrepresentation and false or misleading advertising of policies prohibited. A person shall not make, issue, circulate or cause to be made, issued or circulated, any estimate, illustration, circular, statement, sales presentation or comparison which:

1. Misrepresents the benefits, advantages, conditions or terms of any insurance policy;

2. Misrepresents the dividends or share of the surplus to be received on any insurance policy;

3. Makes any false or misleading statement as to the dividends or share of surplus previously paid on any insurance policy;

4. Is misleading or is a misrepresentation as to the financial condition of any person, or as to the legal reserve system upon which any life insurer operates;

5. Uses any name or title of any policy or class of insurance policies misrepresenting the true nature thereof;

6. Is a misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing or tending to induce the lapse, forfeiture, exchange, conversion or surrender of any insurance policy;

7. Is a misrepresentation for the purpose of effecting a pledge or assignment of or effecting a loan against any insurance policy; or

8. Misrepresents any insurance policy as being shares of stock.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 1688; A 1975, 1287)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Humana Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299 (1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Humana Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299 (1999). “, Nev. Rev. Stat. §686A.030 (1996) (misrepresentation and false advertising); § 686A.”

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 1498 (D. Nev. 1993). “R.S. § 686A.016. Furthermore, the Act specifically prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading information relating to the sale of policies or the benefits obtained thereto, N.”

Contreras v. Taylor (D. Nev. 2025). “Yet even construing 14 these arguments liberally1 in Contreras’s favor, his allegations are insufficient to give rise to 15 viable claims against the defendants, much less establish how this court has jurisdiction over 16 any alleged claims under the state statutes.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.