Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 687B - CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110 (2026)

Representations in applications

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 687B.110  Representations in applications.  All statements and descriptions in any application for an insurance policy or annuity contract, by or in behalf of the insured or annuitant, shall be deemed to be representations and not warranties. Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy or contract unless either:

      1.  Fraudulent;

      2.  Material either to the acceptance of the risk, or to the hazard assumed by the insurer; or

      3.  The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy or contract, or would not have issued it at the same premium rate, or would not have issued a policy or contract in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or contract or otherwise.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 1716)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Randono v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Grp., 793 P.2d 1324 (Nev. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Randono v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Grp., 793 P.2d 1324 (Nev. 1990). · cites it 25× “Randono it was exercising its asserted right to cancel the contract. The basis for the denial of payment was that Mr.”
Schneider v. Cont'l Assurance Co., 885 P.2d 572 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 5× “CNA asserts that estoppel cannot apply here because NRS 687B.110 controls. This assertion simply ignores the issue of whether statements by an insurer’s agent can equitably estop an insurer from invoking the statutory protections.”
Griffin v. Old Repub. Ins., 133 P.3d 251 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d at 1326 -27 (quoting NRS 687B.110). NRS 687B.110 prevents loss of coverage due to an insured’s nonmaterial misrepresentations in an insurance application.”
Siefers v. Pacificare Life Assurance Co., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (D. Nev. 2010). · cites it 5× “2d 1324, 1326 (1990) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110). However, an insurer may rescind a policy if the insured makes misrepresentations, omissions, incorrect statements or conceals facts that (1) are fraudulent; or (2) are “[m]aterial either to the acceptance of the risk, or…”
Garcia v. Dawahare, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D. Nev. 2008). · cites it 6× “Garcia’s *1236 policy null and void under NRS § 687B.110 at the time Plaintiff made her claim for benefits.”
Wallace v. U.S.A.A. Life Gen. Agency, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Nev. 2012). · cites it 6× “First, USAA contends that the policy is voidable and may be rescinded by USAA pursuant to NRS § 687B.110, subparagraph (2) or (3), because Mr.”
Eb Holdings II, Inc. v. Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co., 108 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2024). “004(b); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110(2), (3). Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, there also remain significant disputes of fact over whether the Insureds made a material misrepresentation in their renewal application.”
Medchoice Retention Grp., Inc. v. Rand, 344 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (D. Nev. 2018). · cites it 18× “In the first two counts, MedChoice alleges that it is entitled to rescission of the Policy (Count I) and the increase in limits endorsement (Count II) under NRS § 687B.110. (ECF No. 52.) Count II is asserted as an alternative to Count I.”
EB Holdings II, Inc. v. Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 6× “Nevada law 15 Illinois National argues that “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110 does not require an insurer to 16 provide coverage for a claim when there are material misrepresentations, omissions, concealment 17 of facts, or incorrect statements in an application for insurance.”
James River Ins. Co. v. Hilton (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 4× “5 In Nevada, recission of insurance contracts is justifiable “if any one of the enumerated 6 factors in NRS 687B.110 applies.” Morales, 238 P.3d at 830 (table) (citing Randono v.”
Lang-Black v. AAA Life Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 2× “2 NRS 687B.110. The parties do not dispute that AAA Life issued the 23 24 2 Plaintiff contends that the insurance policy did not afford Defendant the right to rescind the policy of an Insured 25 who has died.”
Old Repub. Ins. v. Jensen, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Nev. 2003). · cites it 2× “The Court’s independent research did not uncover any cases that support the position that section 687B.110 would apply here. Additionally, a simple reading of this statute suggests that there is no application to this case.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110(1) — 1 case
Randono v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Grp., 793 P.2d 1324 (Nev. 1990). “Randono it was exercising its asserted right to cancel the contract. The basis for the denial of payment was that Mr.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110(2) — 4 cases
Randono v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Grp., 793 P.2d 1324 (Nev. 1990). “Randono it was exercising its asserted right to cancel the contract. The basis for the denial of payment was that Mr.”
Eb Holdings II, Inc. v. Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co., 108 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2024). “004(b); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110(2), (3). Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, there also remain significant disputes of fact over whether the Insureds made a material misrepresentation in their renewal application.”
Medchoice Retention Grp., Inc. v. Rand, 344 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (D. Nev. 2018). “In the first two counts, MedChoice alleges that it is entitled to rescission of the Policy (Count I) and the increase in limits endorsement (Count II) under NRS § 687B.110. (ECF No. 52.) Count II is asserted as an alternative to Count I.”
EB Holdings II, Inc. v. Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2023). “Nevada law 15 Illinois National argues that “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110 does not require an insurer to 16 provide coverage for a claim when there are material misrepresentations, omissions, concealment 17 of facts, or incorrect statements in an application for insurance.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.110(3) — 2 cases
Randono v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Grp., 793 P.2d 1324 (Nev. 1990). “Randono it was exercising its asserted right to cancel the contract. The basis for the denial of payment was that Mr.”
Schneider v. Cont'l Assurance Co., 885 P.2d 572 (Nev. 1994). “CNA asserts that estoppel cannot apply here because NRS 687B.110 controls. This assertion simply ignores the issue of whether statements by an insurer’s agent can equitably estop an insurer from invoking the statutory protections.”
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.