recognizing that when questions of fact exist concerning a triable issue, the district court does not abuse its discretion when it submits the questions to the trier of fact for resolution
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that when questions of fact exist concerning a triable issue, the district court does not abuse its discretion when it submits the questions to the trier of fact for resolution
- recognizing insurer's duty to act reasonably during settlement negotiations as derived from insurer's duty to defend
- stating that bad faith means 19 “an actual or implied awareness of the absence of a reasonable basis for denying benefits of the 20 [insurance] policy” (quotation omitted)
- defining bad faith as the “actual or implied awareness of the absence of a reasonable basis for denying benefits”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Saitta, J.,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority on two points. First, Skender v. Brunsonbuilt Construction & Development Co., 122 Nev. 1430 , 148 P.3d 710 (2006), should be mandatory in all civil cases, not just preferred, as the majority suggests. Second, the majority’s holding regarding Skender should be prospective, not retroactive. There was no indication at the time of trial that this court would extend Skender beyond constructional defect cases with comparative negligence de *328 fenses. Therefore, I would affirm the jury verdict in this case and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit Allstate’s special interrogatories.