Bakke v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 111319 NVCA, 75342-COA

Docket Nº:75342-COA
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS, C.J.
Party Name:NICHOLAUS BAKKE, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF ASSATA SMITH; AND ASSATA SMITH, Respondents.
Judge Panel:TAO J., BULLA, J. Hon. Joseph Hardy, Jr., District Judge
Case Date:November 13, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

NICHOLAUS BAKKE, Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF ASSATA SMITH; AND ASSATA SMITH, Respondents.

No. 75342-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 13, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINON

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND

GIBBONS, C.J.

Nicholaus Bakke appeals from a judgment entered on an arbitration award following a district court order striking his request for trial de novo.1 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph Hardy, Jr., Judge.

Bakke was driving a vehicle owned by Diana S. Cordero when he was in an accident with respondent Assata Smith. Smith's insurer, respondent American Family Mutual Insurance Company (AFM), paid money relating to Smith's claim and later brought suit against Bakke and Cordero for subrogation. Smith later intervened in the suit to recover damages from Bakke and Cordero that were not covered by AFM. Bakke I and Cordero were originally jointly represented by counsel, but after ! counsel realized there was a conflict he withdrew. After counsel withdrew, but before Bakke and Cordero obtained new counsel, AFM's motion to deem requests for admission admitted was granted in part, which resulted in Bakke and Cordero being deemed to admit that AFM paid $18, 261.27 in damages and that Bakke had permission to drive Cordero's vehicle.

The matter then proceeded to court-annexed arbitration and the arbitrator found in favor of AFM and Smith. Bakke filed a timely request for trial de novo and AFM moved to strike the request, which Bakke opposed. The district court later granted the motion, finding that Bakke and Cordero failed to timely respond to discovery despite AFM sending several letters to them. The court further found that they failed to respond to requests for admission, resulting in several of the requests being deemed admitted. In addition, the court found that Bakke and Cordero had not responded to requests for production of documents and interrogatories, and that they failed to make themselves available to have their depositions taken. Finally, the court found that Cordero failed to appear at the arbitration, that Bakke appeared telephonically, but was disconnected prior to cross-examination, that they failed...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP