Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 695E - LIABILITY RISK RETENTION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 695E.200 (2026)

Prohibited acts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 695E.200  Prohibited acts.  A risk retention group shall not:

      1.  Transact insurance with any person who is not eligible for membership in the risk retention group;

      2.  Conduct any business in this state if an insurer is directly or indirectly a member or owner of the group, unless all the members of the group are insurers;

      3.  Transact insurance or otherwise operate while financially impaired or in a hazardous financial condition;

      4.  Issue any insurance policy with terms providing, or which have been construed as providing, coverage prohibited by a specific statute of this state or declared unlawful by the highest court of this state which has rendered a judgment concerning the legality of that coverage; or

      5.  Join or contribute financially to the Nevada Insurance Guaranty Association, or to any similar organization or fund in this state, and the provisions of chapter 687A of NRS do not apply to a risk retention group. A risk retention group and its insureds shall not accept any benefit from such an organization or fund for claims arising out of the operation of the risk retention group.

      (Added to NRS by 1987, 1332; A 1995, 1783)

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: State, Comm'r of Ins. v. Chur c/w 85728, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 69 (Nev. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State, Comm'r of Ins. v. Chur c/w 85728, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 69 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 6× “The Directors next argue that the Commissioner’s amendment would be futile for several reasons.”
State, Comm'r of Ins. v. Chur c/w 85728, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 69 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 4× “They maintain that the proposed amended complaint failed to state viable claims because regulatory violations do not present intentional violations of the law, the statute of limitations bars the claims, and an NRS 695E.200 claim fails as a matter of law.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 695E.200(3): 2 cases
State, Comm'r of Ins. v. Chur c/w 85728, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 69 (Nev. 2025). “The Directors next argue that the Commissioner’s amendment would be futile for several reasons.”
State, Comm'r of Ins. v. Chur c/w 85728, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 69 (Nev. 2025). “They maintain that the proposed amended complaint failed to state viable claims because regulatory violations do not present intentional violations of the law, the statute of limitations bars the claims, and an NRS 695E.200 claim fails as a matter of law.”
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.