Nevada Claims Handling & Insurance Bad Faith

NRS 686A.310 identifies unfair claim practices

NRS 686A.310 includes misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions; failing to act reasonably promptly on claim communications; failing to maintain reasonable investigation standards; failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss requirements are completed; failing to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements when insurer liability is reasonably clear; delaying through duplicative proof requirements; failing to explain a denial or compromise offer; advising a claimant not to seek counsel; and misleading a claimant about a limitations period.

The statute’s damages provision makes an insurer liable to its insured for damages caused by an unfair practice. That remedy should be distinguished from statutory provisions that regulate conduct toward both insureds and claimants.

Nevada regulations establish concrete claim-handling timeframes

NAC 686A.665 generally requires acknowledgment of a claim notice within 20 working days and a response within 20 working days to pertinent claimant communications that reasonably call for a response. NAC 686A.670 requires procedures to begin claim investigation within 20 working days and generally to complete the investigation within 30 days unless it cannot reasonably be completed in that time.

NAC 686A.675 generally requires a first-party claimant to be advised of acceptance or denial within 30 working days after properly executed proofs of loss are received. A denial based on a policy provision, condition or exclusion must identify it. If more investigation time is reasonably needed, the insurer must provide the required continuing explanations. An accepted first-party claim generally must be paid within 30 days after acceptance, subject to the regulation.

Common-law bad faith is separate from an ordinary contract dispute

Nevada recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the insurer-insured relationship. Decisions including Pemberton v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Guaranty National Insurance Co. v. Potter and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller distinguish tortious bad faith from a merely incorrect or debatable coverage position. The core inquiry focuses on unreasonable insurer conduct and knowledge that there is no reasonable basis for that conduct.

Third-party claimants occupy a different legal position

In Torres v. Nevada Direct Insurance Co., 131 Nev. 531, 353 P.3d 1203 (2015), the Nevada Supreme Court reaffirmed that a third-party claimant ordinarily lacks the contractual relationship needed to bring an independent common-law bad-faith claim against the tortfeasor’s liability insurer. That does not make insurer conduct toward third-party claimants irrelevant: Nevada statutes and regulations regulate several claimant-facing practices, but standing and remedies depend on the legal relationship and theory asserted.

Build the claim chronology before evaluating misconduct

• date of loss and claim notice
• insurer acknowledgment
• requests for documents or proof of loss
• dates requested information was supplied
• investigation steps
• coverage reservation, acceptance or denial
• liability and damages submissions
• settlement demands and expiration dates
• offers and explanations
• undisputed payments
• requests for additional investigation time
• limitations notices and Division of Insurance communications

Separate coverage correctness from claims-handling conduct

An incorrect coverage decision does not automatically establish bad faith, and a legitimate coverage dispute does not excuse unreasonable claim handling. Preserve the insurer’s stated reasons at each decision point and identify what information was available when the decision was made.

Nevada authority map

NRS 686A.310. Nevada unfair claim practices and statutory insurer liability to its insured for resulting damages.

NAC 686A.660-.680. Minimum standards concerning policy disclosures, communications, investigations, acceptance or denial, continuing notices and claim payments.

Pemberton; Guaranty National v. Potter; Allstate v. Miller. Nevada common-law implied-covenant and insurance bad-faith principles.

Torres v. Nevada Direct Insurance Co. Third-party claimant generally lacks standing for an independent common-law bad-faith claim against the tortfeasor’s liability insurer.

← Previous: Coverage Disclosure & Insurer Duties

Next: Insurance Agents, Applications & Failure to Procure Coverage →