Business Court Declines to Enforce a Covenant Not to Compete
Department 7 of the Washoe County Business Court entered a December 5, 2016 Order denying a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enforcing a former employee’s covenant not to compete. Background The plaintiff was a trading firm engaged in trading, investment, and other business activities in United States, European, and Asian markets. The defendant was […]
Nevada Supreme Court Narrowly Construes Indemnity Clause in Subcontractor Agreement
By Jerry Carter. The Nevada Supreme Court recently decided a significant contract case against a general contractor that sought indemnity from its subcontractor. The case is United Rentals Highway Technologies, Inc. v. Wells Cargo, Inc., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (December 6, 2012) (“United Rentals“). A general contractor, Wells Cargo, Inc. (“Wells Cargo”), hired United […]
Nevada Supreme Court Affirms Judgment That Subcontractor Failed to Establish Express or Implied Contract
By Jerry Carter. The Nevada Supreme Court recently decided a significant contract case against a subcontractor who refused to sign the written subcontract agreement and failed to deliver any work that could be used by the general contractor. The case is Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, Inc., 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (August […]
Nevada Supreme Court Overturns Fraudulent Inducement Judgment Arising out of a Construction Subcontract
By Jerry Carter. In its recent opinion in Road and Highway Builders, LLC v. Northern Nevada Rebar, Inc., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 36 (August 9, 2012), the Nevada Supreme Court attempted to elucidate the sometimes blurry line between breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The general contractor was the successful bidder on a freeway construction […]
Business Court Enforces Intentional Act Exclusion in Homeowner’s Liability Insurance Policy
Many liability insurance policies contain exclusions of coverage for intentional acts committed by the policy holder. A question sometimes arises as to whether the policy holder loses coverage when it commits an intentional act that results in consequences that are different in nature or magnitude than those that were intended. In a June 27, 2012 Order granting summary judgment, Department B6 of the Business Court stated that an intentional assault caused the policy holder to lose insurance coverage even though the policy holder argued that he did not anticipate the injuries that resulted.
A policy holder under a homeowner’s liability insurance policy struck a victim in the face with his closed fist, causing severe bodily injury. There was no dispute that the act of striking the plaintiff was intentional, and the policy holder was prosecuted for, and pleaded “no contest” to battery for that intentional act.
The liability insurance policy contained an exclusion for bodily injury which is either “caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured” or “results from any occurrence caused by an intentional act of any insured where the results are reasonably foreseeable.” The victim argued that the damages resulting from the battery were covered by the homeowner’s liability insurance policy because the extent of the injuries suffered was unforeseeable. The Business Court rejected the victim’s argument, stating that the insured party’s intention to strike the victim sufficed to trigger the intentional act exclusion and thereby remove the incident from insurance coverage.