# Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller

> Nevada Supreme Court · July 30, 2009 · 125 Nev. 300

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787729

## Case

- **Full name:** ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. WILLIAM MILLER, Respondent
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 30, 2009
- **Citations:** 125 Nev. 300; 125 Nev. Adv. Rep. 28; 212 P.3d 318; 2009 Nev. LEXIS 37
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Saitta
- **Judges:** By the Court Gibbons, Cherry, Saitta, Hardesty, Parraguirre, Douglas, Pickering
- **Cited by:** 102 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787729

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)
- holding that “a bad-faith action applies to more than just 18 an insurer’s denial or delay in paying a claim”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787729. Public record. Not legal advice.