Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 686A - TRADE PRACTICES AND FRAUDS; FINANCING OF PREMIUMS

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 686A.270

Knowledge of insurer of prohibited acts required for violation

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 686A.270  Knowledge of insurer of prohibited acts required for violation.  No insurer shall be held guilty of having committed any of the acts prohibited by NRS 686A.010 to 686A.310, inclusive, by reason of the act of any agent, solicitor or employee not an officer, director or department head thereof, unless an officer, director or department head of the insurer has knowingly permitted such act or has had prior knowledge thereof.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 1697)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Hackler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hackler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2016) nvd · cites it 6× “38 at 2 (citing NRS § 686A.270).) Second, State Farm argues that the record contains sufficient evidence to create material disputes of fact as to each subsection listed above.”
Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Young (2019) nvd · cites it 3× “" NRS § 686A.270. To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must present "evidence that an officer, director, or department head was aware of the conduct in question.”
My Left Foot Children's Therapy, LLC v. Certain Underwriter's at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. HAH15-0632 (2021) nvd · cites it 30× “1 Because there is a material dispute of fact as to 23 whether Nev. Rev. Stat. § 686A.270 (“NRS 686A.270”) applies here, because Defendant 24 relies on the incorrect standard for consequential damages, and as further discussed 25 below, the Court will deny Defendant’s motions.”
Goodrich v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company (2021) nvd · cites it 6× “See NRS § 686A.270. In response, Plaintiff attests that 16 Porter, Bristow’s manager, meets the statutory requirement.”
Torgerson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (2024) nvd · cites it 6× “Under NRS § 686A.270, “[n]o insurer 16 shall be held guilty [of violating the Unfair Practices Act] unless an officer, director or department 17 head of the insurer has knowingly permitted such act or has had prior knowledge thereof.”
Zuchelkowski v. Geico General Insurance Company (2023) nvd · cites it 2× “(MTD 5:2–6:11); see 24 NRS 686A.270. As such, this establishes alternative grounds for dismissing without prejudice and with leave to amend Plaintiff’s NUCPA claim.”
Iovino v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. (2023) nvd “” NRS 2 § 686A.270. 3 The plaintiffs admit they have not alleged that an officer, director, or department head 4 knowingly permitted the practices or acts about which they complain.”
Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (2025) nvd “§ 686A.270 and whether State Farm is entitled 20]| to summary judgment on the Nevada Unfair Claims Practices Act given that the pleadings currently before the court are devoid of any facts demonstrating that State Farms actions were 221 done “with the prior knowledge or…”
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.