Arbella Mutual Insurance v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark, 122 Nev. 509

134 P.3d 710 (2006) · Supreme Court of Nevada · May 25, 2006

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court denied Arbella Mutual Insurance Company's petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition, holding that Nevada courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Massachusetts insurer. The court concluded that Arbella purposefully availed itself of Nevada by issuing an automobile policy providing coverage for accidents occurring nationwide, including Nevada. It also held that the Mendeses' claims arose from that coverage and that exercising jurisdiction in Nevada was reasonable.

Holdings

  1. An automobile insurer purposefully avails itself of a forum when its policy expressly provides coverage in that forum, because the insurer has the contractual ability to limit or expand its coverage territory and could reasonably anticipate litigation arising from covered accidents there.
  2. The Mendeses' breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims arose directly from Arbella's purposeful contact with Nevada because the claims were based on Arbella's refusal to pay benefits under a policy covering the Nevada accident.
  3. Exercising specific personal jurisdiction over Arbella in Nevada was reasonable because the burden on Arbella was minimal, Nevada had a significant interest in adjudicating a dispute arising from an accident there, and the Mendeses had a strong interest in obtaining relief in their home forum.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Arbella purposefully availed itself of the Nevada forum, thereby establishing minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction, by issuing a policy that provided coverage for accidents and losses occurring in Nevada.
  2. Whether the Mendeses' claims arose from Arbella's purposeful contact with Nevada.
  3. Whether exercising specific personal jurisdiction over Arbella in Nevada was reasonable under the circumstances.
  4. Whether Arbella was entitled to a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

writ_denied

Cases Cited (13)

  • Trump v. District Court, 109 Nev. 687, 857 P.2d 740 (1993)(followed)
  • Baker v. District Court, 116 Nev. 527, 999 P.2d 1020 (2000)(followed)
  • Mizner v. Mizner, 84 Nev. 268, 439 P.2d 679 (1968)(followed)
  • International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)(followed)
  • Firouzabadi v. District Court, 110 Nev. 1348, 885 P.2d 616 (1994)(followed)
  • Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co., 907 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Rossman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 832 F.2d 282 (4th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • August v. HBA Life Insurance Co., 734 F.2d 168 (4th Cir. 1984)(followed)
  • Budget Rent-A-Car v. District Court, 108 Nev. 483, 835 P.2d 17 (1992)(distinguished)
  • Levinson v. District Court, 103 Nev. 404, 742 P.2d 1024 (1987)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…