Staten v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9133
| Decision Date | 07 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 9133,9133 |
| Citation | 579 P.2d 766,94 Nev. 283 |
| Parties | Phyllis May STATEN, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Does I thru X, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Respondent insured appellant under a policy including $50,000 personal injury (no-fault) coverage, and $15/30,000 uninsured motorist protection. In 1974, appellant sustained serious injuries in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist. Respondent paid basic reparation benefits pursuant to appellant's no-fault coverage in excess of $15,000, but refused to pay additional claims under her uninsured motorist coverage. Appellant thereafter filed suit to recover the full $15,000 of uninsured motorist coverage, along with additional damages for breach of warranty and bad faith. The district court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, concluding: (1) respondent had a statutory right to deduct no-fault payments from uninsured motorist coverage; and (2) did not therefore act in bad faith or breach any implied warranty. We disagree with the lower court's statutory interpretation and reverse.
NRS 690B.020(7) provides: "To the extent that a person is entitled to basic or added reparation benefits under chapter 698 of NRS (no-fault), he may not recover payments under uninsured motor vehicle coverage." (Emphasis added.) Respondent contends the Legislature intended the above language to permit a set-off of no-fault benefits against uninsured motorist protection. However, jurisdictions which have permitted such set-offs have done so only where legislation permitted an explicit "reduction" of benefits. See, e. g., Cal.Ins.Code § 11580.2(e) (West); Or.Rev.Stat. § 743.835; Monaco v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 275 Or. 183, 550 P.2d 422 (1976). Here, it appears that our Legislature intended NRS 690B.020(7) to preclude only a double recovery of benefits under both the no-fault and uninsured motorist provisions of a policy. Cf. Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Connolly, 55 A.D.2d 677, 389 N.Y.S.2d 207 (1976); Rabideau v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 54 A.D.2d 1055, 388 N.Y.S.2d 719 (1976); Adams v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 52 A.D.2d 118, 383 N.Y.S.2d 319 (1976). Any other result would effectively negate the policy provision purchased for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keenan v. Industrial Indem. Ins. Co. of the Northwest
...Co. v. Fletcher, 578 S.W.2d 41 (Ky.1979); Bauder v. Farmers Ins. Co., 76 Or.App. 41, 707 P.2d 1296 (1985); Staten v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 94 Nev. 283, 579 P.2d 766 (1978); Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rhodes, 238 Cal.App.2d 64, 47 Cal.Rptr. 467 (1965); Smith v. Doe, 176 Ga.App. ......
-
Newton v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 275 Or. 183, 550 P.2d 422 (1976) (Or.Rev.Stat. § 743.835). See also Staten v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 579 P.2d 766 (Nev.1978). The broadly worded set-off provision here involved is especially unfair, for it allows an uninsured motorist a......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Maglish
...appeal. Additionally, this is the minimum bodily injury liability coverage required by NRS Chapter 485.2 Cf. Staten v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 94 Nev. 283, 579 P.2d 766 (1978) (where insured was entitled to recover actual damages suffered under UM coverage despite partial recovery under......
-
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Daniel
...multiple coverage for the same risk. See Travelers Insurance Co. v. Lopez, 93 Nev. 463, 567 P.2d 471 (1977); Staten v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 94 Nev. 283, 579 P.2d 766 (1978). See also Neumann v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 101 Nev. 206, 699 P.2d 101 (1985). We have never permitted the......