Nev. Rev. Stat. § 686B.050

Standards

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

NRS 686B.050 Standards.

1. Rates must not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory, nor may an insurer charge any rate which if continued will have or tend to have the effect of destroying competition or creating a monopoly.

2. The Commissioner may disapprove rates if there is not a reasonable degree of price competition at the consumer level with respect to the class of business to which they apply. In determining whether a reasonable degree of price competition exists, the Commissioner shall consider all relevant tests, including:

(a) The number of insurers actively engaged in the class of business and their shares of the market;

(b) The existence of differentials in rates in that class of business;

(c) Whether long-run profitability for insurers generally of the class of business is unreasonably high in relation to its riskiness;

(d) Consumers’ knowledge in regard to the market in question; and

(e) Whether price competition is a result of the market or is artificial.

Ê If competition does not exist, rates are excessive if they are likely to produce a long-run profit that is unreasonably high in relation to the riskiness of the class of business, or if expenses are unreasonably high in relation to the services rendered.

3. Rates are inadequate if they are clearly insufficient, together with the income from investments attributable to them, to sustain projected losses and expenses in the class of business to which they apply.

4. One rate is unfairly discriminatory in relation to another in the same class if it clearly fails to reflect equitably the differences in expected losses and expenses. Rates are not unfairly discriminatory because different premiums result for policyholders with similar exposure to loss but different expense factors, or similar expense factors but different exposure to loss, so long as the rates reflect the differences with reasonable accuracy. Rates are not unfairly discriminatory if they are averaged broadly among persons insured under a group, franchise or blanket policy.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 1699; A 1987, 1533)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (2001) nev · cites it 4× “NRS 686B.050(1) provides that “[rjates must not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.”

Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance (2012) me “04(3) (West 2011); Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 686B.050(3) (West 2011); N.”

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Commissioner of Insurance of Nevada (1998) nev “However, on February 16, 1994, Knaus advised State Farm that the requested rate increases would be disapproved pursuant to NRS 686B.050(1), the Nevada Insurance Code provision prohibiting excessive premium rates.”

Bamforth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (2022) nvd · cites it 7× “15 State Farm argues that all of the insureds’ claims arise under NRS § 686B.050(1)’s 16 prohibition of “excessive” premiums, and that the NDOI has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce 17 that provision of the insurance code.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 686B.050(1) — 3 cases

Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (2001) nev “NRS 686B.050(1) provides that “[rjates must not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.”

Bamforth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (2022) nvd “15 State Farm argues that all of the insureds’ claims arise under NRS § 686B.050(1)’s 16 prohibition of “excessive” premiums, and that the NDOI has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce 17 that provision of the insurance code.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 686B.050(3) — 2 cases

Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (2001) nev “NRS 686B.050(1) provides that “[rjates must not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.”

Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance (2012) me “04(3) (West 2011); Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 686B.050(3) (West 2011); N.”

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.