Reno Personal Injury Lawyer - Workplace Injuries

NEVADA LAW: Coverage for Additional Insured's Independent Negligent Acts

Steve Klearman — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:31:10 GMT

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN HARDWARE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 31 (May 29, 2008)

In an opinion issued in May, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether, under Nevada law, an additional insured endorsement provides coverage for an injury caused by the sole independent negligence of the additional named insured.

Clark Lift West, Inc. was issued a liability insurance policy by American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company. Clark Lift provided maintenance and repair services at Southern Wine and Spirits of America, Inc., so Southern Wine was listed as an additional insured on Clark Lift's insurance policy with American Hardware. The policy covered Southern Wine, as an additional insured, for liability only arising out of Clark Lift's ongoing operations performed for Southern Wine.

Charles Pierce, a Clark Lift employee, was injured while working at Southern Wine's facility. Pierce initiated a personal injury claim against Southern Wine seeking damages for Southern Wine's negligence in causing his injuries. American Hardware refused to defend the lawsuit, asserting that its additional insured policy did not extend to Southern Wine's negligence.

Using traditional interpretation for ambiguous insurance contracts, in favor of the insured and favoring coverage, the Court held that "when the term "arising out of the operations" of a named insured is included in an additional insured provision, that term must be read to include coverage for acts arising from the additional insured's own negligence."

The Court concluded that "unless the contrary intent is demonstrated by specific language excluding or limiting coverage for injuries caused by the additional insured's independent negligent acts, there is coverage."

See the full opinion FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN HARDWARE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 31 (May 29, 2008)

In an opinion issued in May, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether, under Nevada law, an additional insured endorsement provides coverage for an injury caused by the sole independent negligence of the additional named insured.

Clark Lift West, Inc. was issued a liability insurance policy by American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company. Clark Lift provided maintenance and repair services at Southern Wine and Spirits of America, Inc., so Southern Wine was listed as an additional insured on Clark Lift's insurance policy with American Hardware. The policy covered Southern Wine, as an additional insured, for liability only arising out of Clark Lift's ongoing operations performed for Southern Wine.

Charles Pierce, a Clark Lift employee, was injured while working at Southern Wine's facility. Pierce initiated a personal injury claim against Southern Wine seeking damages for Southern Wine's negligence in causing his injuries. American Hardware refused to defend the lawsuit, asserting that its additional insured policy did not extend to Southern Wine's negligence.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Supreme Court Says Suicide Not Willful in Workers' Compensation Case

Steve Klearman — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:17:02 GMT

The Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision last week in Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS allowing surviving family members to recover workers' compensation death benefits under certain circumstances when an injured employee commits suicide.

NRS 616C.230(1) provides for workers' compensation benefits for accidental employee deaths but precludes surviving family members from recovering when a the employee's death was caused by his "willful intention to injure himself."

The Supreme Court ruled that a suicide is not "willful" for the purpose of denying workers' compensation death benefits if a sufficient causal chain links an employee's work related injury to the employee's suicide. The precedent setting standard requires a surviving family member to show the following:

(1) the employee suffered an industrial injury,
(2) the industrial injury caused some psychological condition severe enough to override the employee's rational judgment, and
(3) the psychological condition caused the employee to commit suicide.

Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 53 (July 24, 2008)

The full opinion can be found here

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

More Wierdness in Mack Trial

Steve Klearman — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:07:44 GMT

Yes, more wierdness in a case that's had it's share.

First, Mack stabs his wife to death and shoots a judge (always the best way to endear oneself to the legal community about to determine your fate).

Darren Mack flees, he's talked into coming back by the D.A. (of all people).

Darren Mack pleads guilty (before putting on a defense); now he's changed his mind, fired attorney Scott Freeman (Mack will have a hard time if he wants to claim ineffective assistance) and hired Laub and Laub.

What's wrong with this guy?

According to Martha Bellisle, writing for the Reno Gazette today, Mack dropped his legal defense team after pleading guilty to murder and attempted murder charges, and plans to file a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, a source close to his family said Thursday.

The withdrawal motion has yet to be filed but was in the process of being crafted, the source said.

As of Wednesday, Scott Freeman, one of Mack's trial lawyers, had signed the substitution request but David Chesnoff had not.

William Routsis, a lawyer with the Reno firm of Laub and Laub, was to take over the case, the source said.

In a surprise move, Mack, 46, stopped his murder trail on Nov. 5, just as his lawyers were about to present the defense case and agreed to plead guilty to first-degree murder of his estranged wife, Charla, 39.

She was found stabbed to death in the garage of his upscale townhouse on June 14, 2006.

Mack also entered a conditional guilty plea on the attempted murder charge in the sniper-style shooting of their divorce judge, Chuck Weller.

Under the plea, Mack said he did not intend to kill the judge but acknowledged that the prosecution had enough evidence to convict him.

Neither Freeman nor Chesnoff could be reached for comment late Thursday. Special Prosecutor Robert Daskas also did not return phone messages.

Judge Douglas Herndon had scheduled sentencing Jan. 17-18 in Las Vegas, where he moved the trial after determining an impartial jury could not be found in Washoe County.

Mack faces life in prison with the possibility of parole after

20 years on the murder charge.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Business Not Liable in Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Steve Klearman — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:40:46 GMT

Are businesses in Nevada liable when their employees assault others while on the job? The Nevada Supreme Court has never really thought so and still doesn't.

The Court recently affirmed its longstanding views in this regard in set of holdings on this issue in Wood v. Safeway, decided on October 20, 2005.

There, Jane Doe, a mentally handicapped woman, was working for Safeway Stores when she was sexually assaulted by Emilio Ronquillo-Nino, who was employed by a company that provided janitorial services at the Safeway where Doe worked. Doe, through her guardian ad litem, filed a complaint against Safeway and Ronquillo-Nino's employer, Action Cleaning, alleging five causes of action as a result of the sexual assault.

The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Safeway, determining that it was immune from suit because of coverage provided by the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act (NIIA). The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of Action Cleaning pursuant to NRS 41.745 because it was not liable for intentional torts committed by its employee and because Ronquillo-Ninoâ€™s intervening criminal acts were a superseding cause that relieved Action Cleaning of responsibility.

Nevada law has long barred employees from suing employers for injuries that arise in the course of employment. In Wood, the Court recognized that Doe's employment with Safeway brought her into contact with the assailant. While the nature of her work required her to interact with employees and the public, her specific job duties included cleaning various areas of the store and collecting shopping carts from the parking lot. Two of the sexual assaults occurred while she was collecting carts from a lot that was behind or next to the store, and the other in a cleaning supply room that was presumably in an area off limits to the public. As a result, the Court concluded that Doe's employment contributed to and increased the risk of assault beyond that of the general public. Her only contact with Ronquillo-Nino was through her employment. Because he worked as a janitor there, he was aware of the store layout and which areas of the store provided vulnerable locations. The sexual assault, reasoned the Court, was not imported into the workplace or otherwise the result of motivations peculiar to the assailant and the victim that are unrelated to the employment. Therefore, Doe's injury falls within the coverage of the NIIA, and her claims are barred by NRS 616A.020.

The Court also examined the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Action Cleaning based on the dual grounds that (a) under NRS 41.745 an employer is not liable for harm caused by the intentional torts of an employee, and (b) Ronquillo-Nino's intervening criminal act was a superseding cause that relieved Action Cleaning of liability. Doe argued against both conclusions on the basis that Ronquillo-Nino's acts were foreseeable given that Action Cleaning's workforce is highly transient, untrained, largely unsupervised, and "comprised almost entirely of" illegal aliens.

The Court disagreed. First, said the Court, Ronquillo-Nino had no prior criminal history in the United States or Mexico. Action Cleaning requires applicants to show proof of identification, checks employment references, and completes the proper Immigration and Naturalization forms for every employee. Action Cleaning's district manager further stated that he had not received complaints of sexual harassment regarding Ronquillo-Nino or any other employee in the past ten years. Under the circumstances of this case, it was therefore not reasonably foreseeable that Ronquillo-Nino would sexually assault a Safeway employee. Moreover, as noted, the assault resulted from Ronquillo-Nino's independent acts and was not within the course and scope of his employment. Consequently, under NRS 41.745, the Court found that Action Cleaning was not liable for the intentional conduct of its employee, Ronquillo-Nino and the Court similarly concluded that Ronquillo-Nino's actions were an intervening superseding act that relieves Action Cleaning of liability in this case.

Nevada is a state that protects employers and The Nevada Supreme Court's conclusion in the Wood case continues Nevada's tradition of protecting employers from the consequences of intentional harm done by their employees.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman