Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed district court orders denying attorney fees and costs in consolidated appeals arising from an insurance company's unsuccessful intervention in a tort action. The court held that NRS 12.130(1)(d) authorizes recovery of costs but does not expressly authorize attorney fees, and that attorney fees were not warranted under NRS 18.010 because the insurer's intervention arguments were reasonable. The court also upheld denial of Lewis's request for costs because he did not provide sufficient evidence that the costs were reasonable, necessary, and actually incurred.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether NRS 12.130(1)(d), which requires an unsuccessful intervening party to pay all costs incurred by the intervention, authorizes an award of attorney fees.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) on the ground that UAIC's intervention claims were not brought or maintained without reasonable grounds.
- Whether the district court erred by denying Lewis's motion for costs because he failed to provide sufficient evidence that the claimed costs were reasonable, necessary, and actually incurred.
Holdings
- NRS 12.130(1)(d) authorizes recovery of costs incurred by an unsuccessful intervention but does not authorize an award of attorney fees because the statute does not expressly mention attorney fees.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) because UAIC's intervention arguments were reasonable and were not brought or maintained without reasonable grounds.
- The district court properly denied Lewis's motion for costs because he failed to provide sufficient evidence that the claimed costs were reasonable, necessary, and actually incurred.
Key quotations
“The statute's plain language provides for recovery of costs but does not mention attorney fees.” (at 2)
“Because the Legislature did not expressly provide for attorney fees in NRS 12.130, the district court properly denied the requests for fees under that statute.” (at 2)
“And UAIC's arguments in support of intervention were reasonable.” (at 3)
“Accordingly, we ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.” (at 3)
Factual background
UAIC denied coverage for a traffic accident caused by Gary Lewis. Several years later, Cheyenne Nalder, through her guardian ad litem, obtained a default judgment against Lewis. UAIC attempted to intervene, but its intervention failed, and the parties sought attorney fees and costs arising from that intervention and related litigation.
Procedural history
Cheyenne Nalder obtained a default judgment against Gary Lewis after Lewis's insurer, United Automobile Insurance Company, denied coverage for a traffic accident caused by Lewis. UAIC unsuccessfully attempted to intervene. Nalder and Lewis moved for attorney fees, and Lewis separately moved for costs; the district court denied the motions. The parties appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.