Insurance Stacking in Nevada after Delgado
The Nevada Supreme Court has carved out an exception to the state's rule on insurance stacking in motor vehicle accident cases.
September 30, 2010
Last October, the Nevada Supreme Court carved out an exception to the state's rule on insurance stacking in motor vehicle accident cases. In Delgado v. American Family Insurance Group, the court held that passengers injured in a two-car accident can recover under the permissive driver's liability and underinsured motorist (UIM) policies when both drivers are found to be jointly liable for the accident.Delgado v. American Family
In 2004, Dionicia Delgado was riding as a passenger in a car driven by Eunice Marcelino when the vehicle was involved in an accident with Toquanda Dean. Delgado suffered severe injuries as a result of the crash. Marcelino carried an American Family insurance policy providing $50,000 in liability and $25,000 in UIM coverage. Dean carried a basic liability policy for $15,000. Both drivers were found partially responsible for the accident causing Delgado's injuries.
Delgado offered to settle with each of the drivers for their policy limits. American Family rejected Delgado's claim to the $25,000 UIM benefits in Marcelino's insurance contract, arguing that Marcelino's vehicle was not eligible for UIM benefits under the policy and that Delgado was not entitled to these benefits under state law. Delgado then filed suit against American Family.
The district court rejected Delgado's claims to the UIM benefits, based in part on Nevada precedent in two previous cases, Peterson and Baker. Those cases preclude injured passengers from collecting liability and UIM benefits from the same insurance policy.
Nevada Supreme Court Makes Exception to No-Stacking Rule
On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling, holding that the facts in Delgado warranted a finding that the injured passenger could collect benefits under the liability and UIM portions of the same driver's insurance policy.
In its opinion, the court distinguished Delgado from earlier case law based on the facts of the case. In Delgado, there were two drivers involved in the accident, each with their own insurance policies. Additionally, both drivers were found concurrently liable for the accident. The Peterson and Baker cases, by contrast, each involved single car accidents with only one driver and one insurance policy.
In these cases, the court reasoned, it was impermissible to stack liability and UIM benefits under the same policy because it was in effect allowing the injured passenger to increase the liability limits under the insurance policy. However, in Delgado, the same result would not occur.
The court found that since Delgado was a lawful occupant of Marcelino's car, Marcelino's insurance policy provided UM/UIM coverage to her. Even though Marcelino's vehicle did not qualify under the policy for UM/UIM coverage, Dean's vehicle could. Further, because Marcelino and Dean both were found liable for the accident and for Delgado's injuries, Delgado was entitled to collect under the liability and UIM portions of Marcelino's insurance policy for their joint negligence.
The Nevada Supreme Court made sure to point out that its decision did not overrule its decisions in Peterson and Baker. In single vehicle accidents, it still is not permissible for injured passengers to collect under both portions of the same insurance policy.
The exception announced in Delgado only applies in cases with similar fact patterns in which there are two or more drivers found jointly responsible for the accident, each with their own insurance policy. In these cases, the injured passenger can collect under the liability and UIM portions of the same driver's insurance policy if one of the negligent drivers does not have sufficient insurance to cover all of the passenger's losses.
Conclusion
If you have been injured in automobile accident, contact a knowledgeable attorney today. Under state law, you are entitled to compensation for your injuries from the responsible driver, which may include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages.
Article provided by Harris & Harris Lawyers
Visit us at www.harrisschwartz.com