Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.145

Provisions in policies of casualty insurance: Proration of recovery or benefits; uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage; coverage for medical expenses; insurer not entitled to subrogation upon payment made because of underinsured vehicle coverage

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

NRS 687B.145 Provisions in policies of casualty insurance: Proration of recovery or benefits; uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage; coverage for medical expenses; insurer not entitled to subrogation upon payment made because of underinsured vehicle coverage.

1. Any policy of insurance or endorsement providing coverage under the provisions of NRS 690B.020 or other policy of casualty insurance may provide that if the insured has coverage available to the insured under more than one policy or provision of coverage, any recovery or benefits may equal but not exceed the higher of the applicable limits of the respective coverages, and the recovery or benefits must be prorated between the applicable coverages in the proportion that their respective limits bear to the aggregate of their limits. Any provision which limits benefits pursuant to this section must be in clear language and be prominently displayed in the policy, binder or endorsement. Any limiting provision is void if the named insured has purchased separate coverage on the same risk and has paid a premium calculated for full reimbursement under that coverage.

2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, insurance companies transacting motor vehicle insurance in this State must offer, on a form approved by the Commissioner, uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage in an amount equal to the limits of coverage for bodily injury sold to an insured under a policy of insurance covering the use of a passenger car or motorcycle. The insurer is not required to reoffer the coverage to the insured in any replacement, reinstatement, substitute or amended policy, but the insured may purchase the coverage by requesting it in writing from the insurer. Each renewal must include a copy of the form offering such coverage. Uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage must include a provision which enables the insured to recover up to the limits of the insured’s own coverage any amount of damages for bodily injury from the insured’s insurer which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of the other vehicle to the extent that those damages exceed the limits of the coverage for bodily injury carried by that owner or operator. If an insured suffers actual damages subject to the limitation of liability provided pursuant to NRS 41.035, underinsured vehicle coverage must include a provision which enables the insured to recover up to the limits of the insured’s own coverage any amount of damages for bodily injury from the insured’s insurer for the actual damages suffered by the insured that exceed that limitation of liability.

3. An insurance company transacting motor vehicle insurance in this State must offer an insured under a policy covering the use of a passenger car or motorcycle, the option of purchasing coverage in an amount of at least $1,000 for the payment of reasonable and necessary medical expenses resulting from a crash. The offer must be made on a form approved by the Commissioner. The insurer is not required to reoffer the coverage to the insured in any replacement, reinstatement, substitute or amended policy, but the insured may purchase the coverage by requesting it in writing from the insurer. Each renewal must include a copy of the form offering such coverage.

4. An insurer who makes a payment to an injured person on account of underinsured vehicle coverage as described in subsection 2 is not entitled to subrogation against the underinsured motorist who is liable for damages to the injured payee. This subsection does not affect the right or remedy of an insurer under subsection 5 of NRS 690B.020 with respect to uninsured vehicle coverage. As used in this subsection, “damages” means the amount for which the underinsured motorist is alleged to be liable to the claimant in excess of the limits of bodily injury coverage set by the underinsured motorist’s policy of casualty insurance.

5. An insurer need not offer, provide or make available uninsured or underinsured vehicle coverage in connection with a general commercial liability policy, an excess policy, an umbrella policy or other policy that does not provide primary motor vehicle insurance for liabilities arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of a specifically insured motor vehicle.

6. As used in this section:

(a) “Excess policy” means a policy that protects a person against loss in excess of a stated amount or in excess of coverage provided pursuant to another insurance contract.

(b) “Motorcycle” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 482.070.

(d) “Umbrella policy” means a policy that protects a person against losses in excess of the underlying amount required to be covered by other policies.

(Added to NRS by 1979, 1090; A 1981, 15; 1983, 1105; 1989, 1567, 1846; 1991, 1943; 1997, 3032; 2003, 3312; 2015, 1694; 2021, 500)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: SCIARRATTA VS. FOREMOST INS. CO. GRAND RAPIDS MICH.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

SCIARRATTA VS. FOREMOST INS. CO. GRAND RAPIDS MICH. (2021) nev · cites it 20× “But the Legislature soon changed the statute by expressly excluding umbrella policies from the operation of NRS 687B.145. See 1997 Nev. Stat., ch. 603, § 22.”

Neumann v. STANDARD FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD (1985) nev · cites it 4× “In an effort to include the anti-stacking provisions of NRS 687B.145 within the original policy, Standard Fire sent appellants an amendment to the policy.”

Estate LoMastro Ex Rel. LoMastro v. American Family Insurance Group (2008) nev · cites it 2× “American Family’s argument is based primarily on the statutory language of NRS 687B.145 and NRS 690B.020 and two cases, Kern v.”

Mid-Century Insurance v. Daniel (1985) nev · cites it 4× “OPINION Per Curiam: We are required in this appeal to interpret the 1979 version of NRS 687B.145 which directs insurance carriers to provide uninsured and underinsured motorist protection to their policy holders.”

Torres v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1990) nev · cites it 3× “On August 25, 1989, following a hearing, the court granted summary judgment to Farmers, concluding that the anti-stacking amendment met each of NRS 687B.145(1)’s three main requirements for validity, which are discussed below.”

Progressive Casuality Insurance Co. v. MMG Insurnace Co. (2014) vt · cites it 2× “” (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.145(2) (1982))); Millers Cas.”

Allstate Insurance v. Fackett (2009) nev “NRS 687B.145(2) does not entitle insureds to recover UM benefits for injuries to uninsured third parties Allstate argues that the plain language of NRS 687B.”

Estate of Delmue v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1997) nev · cites it 2× “Delmue alleges that NRS 687B.145(2) 3 required Allstate to offer UM/UIM coverage equal to its $1,000,000 umbrella policy limit.”

Hartz v. Mitchell (1991) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 687B.145, which covers the statutory obligations applicable *896 to both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, expressly refers to NRS 690B.”

Farmers Insurance Group v. Stonik Ex Rel. Stonik (1994) nev “In Torres , this court held that an anti-stacking endorsement was invalid for the purposes of *70 NRS 687B.145(1). 2 Although the Torres court considered language identical to the language at issue here, the factual climate of the decision is fundamentally different from the…”

Serrett v. Kimber (1994) nev · cites it 2× “In 1979, however, the legislature enacted NRS 687B.145(1), 2 which provided the means whereby insurance companies could prevent the stacking of UM coverages.”

Lee v. Allstate Insurance (1986) nvd · cites it 2× “Thereafter, NRS § 687B.145(2) became effective, which required insurance carriers to offer uninsured motorist coverage equal to the insured’s normal bodily injury limits.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.145(1) — 16 cases

Torres v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1990) nev “On August 25, 1989, following a hearing, the court granted summary judgment to Farmers, concluding that the anti-stacking amendment met each of NRS 687B.145(1)’s three main requirements for validity, which are discussed below.”

Neumann v. STANDARD FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD (1985) nev “In an effort to include the anti-stacking provisions of NRS 687B.145 within the original policy, Standard Fire sent appellants an amendment to the policy.”

Serrett v. Kimber (1994) nev “In 1979, however, the legislature enacted NRS 687B.145(1), 2 which provided the means whereby insurance companies could prevent the stacking of UM coverages.”

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Coatney (2002) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.145(2) — 12 cases

Progressive Casuality Insurance Co. v. MMG Insurnace Co. (2014) vt “” (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.145(2) (1982))); Millers Cas.”

Estate of Delmue v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1997) nev “Delmue alleges that NRS 687B.145(2) 3 required Allstate to offer UM/UIM coverage equal to its $1,000,000 umbrella policy limit.”

SCIARRATTA VS. FOREMOST INS. CO. GRAND RAPIDS MICH. (2021) nev “But the Legislature soon changed the statute by expressly excluding umbrella policies from the operation of NRS 687B.145. See 1997 Nev. Stat., ch. 603, § 22.”

Lee v. Allstate Insurance (1986) nvd “Thereafter, NRS § 687B.145(2) became effective, which required insurance carriers to offer uninsured motorist coverage equal to the insured’s normal bodily injury limits.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.145(3) — 1 case

Wingco v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. (2014) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.145(5) — 1 case

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.