Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.385 (2026)

Refusal to issue, cancellation, nonrenewal or increase in premium of policy of motor vehicle insurance due to claims for which insured was not at fault, claims for which insurer made no payment or recovered entirety of payment or inquiries relating to a claim prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 687B.385 Refusal to issue, cancellation, nonrenewal or increase in premium of policy of motor vehicle insurance due to claims for which insured was not at fault, claims for which insurer made no payment or recovered entirety of payment or inquiries relating to a claim prohibited. An insurer shall not refuse to issue, cancel, refuse to renew or increase the premium for renewal of a policy of motor vehicle insurance covering private passenger cars or commercial vehicles as a result of any:

1. Claims made under any policy of insurance with respect to which the insured was not at fault;

2. Claims made under any policy of insurance for which the insurer has not made any payment or for which the insurer recovered the entirety of the insurer’s payment on the claim by means of salvage, subrogation or another mechanism; or

3. Inquiries made regarding an actual or potential claim under any policy of insurance regarding:

(a) The existence of insurance coverage for any matter; or

(b) Any hypothetical or informational matter pertaining to insurance.

(Added to NRS by 1987, 1063; A 1997, 3033; 2017, 2354)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 16 P.3d 1069 (Nev. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 16 P.3d 1069 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 42× “1 The first question is whether NRS 687B.385, which prohibits the cancellation or nonre-newal of certain types of insurance policies, applied to homeowner’s insurance policies prior to a 1997 amendment, which expressly limited the statute’s applicability to automobile insurance…”

State v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 995 P.2d 482 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 19× “The Division denied the allegations and asserted that the regulation, as amended, was a reasonable requirement related to the administration or effectuation of a provision of the Nevada insurance code, namely NRS 687B.385. *292 State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins. of Nevada, 958 P.2d 733 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 24× “We are asked to determine whether, in the absence of regulatory action, State Farm’s interpretation of the “at-fault” rules set forth in NRS 687B.385 was reasonable. We conclude that it was and, accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court.”

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.M.R., 2021 NV 23 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “2d 482, 485 (2000) (interpreting NRS 687B.385). Interpreted "in pari materia," NRCP 16.”

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.