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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 687B.420

Notice of proposed cancellation, nonrenewal or alteration of terms of certain policies, contracts or plans of insurance

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 687B.420  Notice of proposed cancellation, nonrenewal or alteration of terms of certain policies, contracts or plans of insurance.

      1.  An insurer shall not cancel, fail to renew or renew with altered terms a policy or contract issued pursuant to chapter 688B, 689A, 689B, 689C, 695A, 695B, 695C, 695D or 695F of NRS unless notice in writing of the proposal is given to the insured at least 60 days before the date the proposed action becomes effective. The notice must include, without limitation, any changes in specific rates by line of coverage.

      2.  An insurer shall not cancel, fail to renew or renew with altered terms an individual health benefit plan that is not grandfathered pursuant to applicable law unless notice in writing of the proposal is given to the insured at least 30 days before the beginning of the open enrollment period described in NRS 686B.080. The notice must include the specific changes in terms or rates, as applicable.

      (Added to NRS by 1989, 1248; A 1993, 1982, 2400, 2405; 2015, 3477)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2017 · leading case: Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (2001) nev · cites it 3× “310 through NRS 687B.420, which govern the cancellation and nonrenewal of certain types of insurance policies.”
O.P.H. OF LAS VEGAS, INC. VS. OREGON MUT. INS. CO. (2017) nev · cites it 4× “310 through NRS 687B.420. Invalidating the Notice because it failed to include the statutorily required language regarding the insured's right to request information about the cancellation when there was no more information to provide seems illogical, especially since OPH denied…”
O.P.H. OF LAS VEGAS, INC. VS. OREGON MUT. INS. CO. (2017) nev · cites it 2× “310 through NRS 687B.420. Invalidating the Notice because it failed to include the statutorily required language regarding the insured's right to request information about the cancellation when there was no more information to provide seems illogical, especially since OPH denied…”
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.