252 P.3d 206 (Nev. 2011), 54823, Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc.
|Citation:||252 P.3d 206, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 29|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||Marcos ARGUELLO, Appellant, v. SUNSET STATION, INC., A Nevada Corporation d/b/a Sunset Station Hotel & Casino, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Law Office of Julie A. Mersch and Julie A. Mersch, Las Vegas, for Appellant. Cisneros Clayson & Marias and Scott B. Van Alfen, Las Vegas, for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Before SAITTA, HARDESTY and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.|
|Case Date:||June 02, 2011|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nevada|
In this appeal, we primarily consider the scope of NRS 651.010(1), which limits the liability of hotels for " the theft, loss, damage or destruction of any property brought by a patron upon the premises or left in a motor vehicle upon the premises ... in the absence of gross neglect by the owner or keeper" of the hotel. In particular, we consider whether NRS 651.010(1) shields a hotel from liability arising out of the theft of and damage to a guest's motor vehicle that was parked in the hotel's valet parking lot. We conclude that it does not.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2006, appellant Marcos Arguello drove his vehicle to respondent Sunset Station, Inc., d.b.a. Sunset Station Hotel & Casino, gave his keys to a valet attendant, and received a claim ticket for his vehicle. A few hours later, when Arguello attempted to retrieve his vehicle, it was determined that an unknown party had stolen it from the valet parking lot. The vehicle was recovered the following day in a stripped condition. Arguello then submitted a claim for the loss of his vehicle to his insurer, Farmer's Insurance, and Farmer's issued a check to Arguello in the amount of $20,434.98.
Thereafter, Arguello filed a lawsuit in district court against Sunset Station, alleging negligence and breach of a bailment contract. Arguello sought damages exceeding $10,000 for, among other things, the loss of the use of his vehicle and the cost of customizations made to the vehicle.
Sunset Station moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRS 651.010 shielded it from liability for the theft of Arguello's vehicle and that Arguello did not have standing to sue because Farmer's became subrogated to the rights of Arguello when it issued a check for his insurance claim. The district court determined that NRS 651.010(1) shielded Sunset Station from liability arising out of the theft of Arguello's vehicle and entered summary judgment in favor of Sunset Station.1 This appeal followed.
Standard of review
We review de novo whether the district court appropriately granted summary judgment. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Summary judgment is appropriate " when the
pleadings and other evidence on file demonstrate that no ‘ genuine issue as to any material fact [remains] and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ " Id. (alteration in original) (quoting NRCP 56(c)).
Standing is a question of law reviewed de novo. Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno, 125 Nev. __, __, 218 P.3d 847, 850-51 (2009) (applying de novo review in deciding upon whom a statute conferred standing). " [Q]uestions of statutory construction, including the meaning and scope of a statute, are questions of law, which this court reviews de novo." City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58, 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003).
Standing and subrogation
As a threshold argument, Sunset Station asserts that Arguello lacks standing to sue because he accepted compensation from Farmer's for the theft of his vehicle. Thus, according to Sunset Station, pursuant to the doctrine of subrogation, Farmer's is the only party that has standing to bring a lawsuit for damages arising from the theft of Arguello's vehicle. We disagree.
Arguello is a real party in interest with standing to sue
NRCP 17(a) provides that " [e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." A real party in interest "...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP