Opinion
2:22-cv-1204-JAD-VCF
09-30-2022
PATRICIA ZAVALA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, dba GEICO, an entity licensed to do business in Nevada; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS, XI through XX, inclusive, Defendants.
Alyssa Piraino LLOYD BAKER INJURY ATTORNEYS LLOYD W. BAKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 6893 ALYSSA N. PIRAINO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 14601 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jonathan W. Carlson McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte& Carruth LLP Jonathan W. Carlson Frank A. Toddre, II Henry H. Kim Attorneys for Defendant
Alyssa Piraino LLOYD BAKER INJURY ATTORNEYS LLOYD W. BAKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 6893 ALYSSA N. PIRAINO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 14601 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jonathan W. Carlson McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte& Carruth LLP Jonathan W. Carlson Frank A. Toddre, II Henry H. Kim Attorneys for Defendant
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pursuant to FRCP 15, LR 15-1 and LR IA 6-2, Plaintiff Patricia Zavala by and through her attorneys, Lloyd W. Baker, Esq. and Alyssa N. Piraino Esq., of Lloyd Baker Injury Attorneys, together with Defendant GEICO Advantage Insurance Company (erroneously sued as GEICO Casualty Company dba GEICO) by and through their attorneys of record, Jonathan Carlson, Esq. and Henry H. Kim, Esq., of McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP, hereby stipulate and agree that the caption to this matter should be amended to correctly identify GEICO Advantage Insurance Company as the defendant in this matter, in place of GEICO Casualty Company dba GEICO.
The parties further stipulate and agree by and through their attorneys of record, pursuant to FRCP 15, Plaintiff be allowed to file a First Amended Complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A). The parties respectfully request that this Court grant this Stipulation to file a First Amended Complaint, providing leave for the specific purpose of correctly identifying GEICO Advantage Insurance Company as the defendant in this matter.
Respectfully, ORDER
Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to file the First Amended Complaint, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
DATED this 6th day of October, 2022
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint must be filed on or before October 13, 2022.
EXHIBIT A
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, PATRICIA ZAVALA, by and through her attorneys, LLOYD W. BAKER, ESQ. and ALYSSA N. PIRAINO, ESQ., of LLOYD BAKER INJURY ATTORNEYS, and for her causes of action against Defendants, and each of them, alleges as follows:
1. That at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, PATRICIA ZAVALA (“Plaintiff”), was a resident of Clark County, State of Nevada.
2. That all of the material facts and circumstances that give rise to the subject lawsuit occurred in Clark County, State of Nevada.
3. That at all times relevant hereto, Defendant, GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, (“GEICO”) was and is a duly licensed business entity authorized to conduct business in Nevada as an insurance company and conducting said business in Nevada.
4. Plaintiff's Complaint states a controversy over which this Honorable Court has jurisdiction and venue is properly in this Court as Plaintiff is a resident of Clark County, Nevada; Defendant does business within Clark County, Nevada; the relevant policy of insurance was underwritten and covered Plaintiff for her use of her motor vehicle in Clark County, Nevada; the relevant policy of insurance was written to insure, inter alia, against loss to Plaintiff in Clark County, Nevada; the loss, injuries and damages incurred by Plaintiff that underlie the claim against Defendants occurred while Plaintiff was in Clark County, Nevada; and benefits due from the policy of insurance and damages claimed by Plaintiff were due and payable in Clark County, Nevada.
5. That the identities of the Defendant DOES I through X, and ROE Corporations XI through XX are unknown at this time and may be insurance agents, individuals, partnerships or corporations. Plaintiff alleges that each of the Defendants designated herein as DOE's I through X and ROE Corporations XI through XX are responsible in some manner either through their individual acts or negligent omissions for the damages herein alleged. Plaintiff will request leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to name the identity of the additional DOE and ROE Defendants when their identities become known.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. That prior to March 15, 2020, in Clark County, Nevada, Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with Defendant, GEICO, bearing policy number 4559-81-70-53, whereby Defendant, GEICO, agreed to provide Plaintiff with, among other coverages, $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident in Underinsured Motorist Protection benefits; and in reliance upon Defendant's representations, Plaintiff purchased said underinsured motorist policy from Defendant, and that on or about March 15, 2020, said coverage was in force.
7. That Policy 4559-81-70-53 provided insurance for a 2017 Honda Accord, a 2019 Dodge Ram, and a 2018 Keystone Recreational Vehicle. The named insureds on the policy were Sergio Picciuto and Patricia Zavala.
8. That on or about March 15, 2020, Plaintiff was a fault-free passenger in a serious motorcycle accident caused by the negligence of non-party tortfeasor Sergio Picciuto, the driver of the subject motorcycle and then-boyfriend of Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of said accident, Plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injuries.
9. That the subject motorcycle was owned by non-party Sergio Picciuto. Plaintiff did not have any ownership rights related to the subject motorcycle and she did not drive the subject motorcycle.
10. That at the time of the subject collision, non-party tortfeasor Sergio Picciuto's motorcycle liability insurance policy-GEICO policy no. 4592-49-35-99-had purportedly lapsed, rendering him uninsured from a liability perspective.
11. Upon information and belief, Mr. Picciuto was the sole named insured on the motorcycle policy.
12. That at the time of the subject collision, Plaintiff was insured by Defendant, GEICO, sued herein, according to the above-described contract, and other policies issued by DOES I through X, and Roe Corporations XI through XX which provided her various forms of motor vehicle coverage, including benefits for compensation resulting from injuries and damages caused by uninsured motorists.
13. That on or about March 27, 2020, Defendant GEICO informed Plaintiff that Defendant GEICO would not be providing any coverage for the claim against non-party Sergio Picciuto's motorcycle policy because the “policy was not in force when [the] accident occurred.”
14. That on or about May 14, 2020, Defendant GEICO informed Plaintiff's counsel that GEICO “denies any and all liability or obligation to [non-party Sergio Picciuto] and to others under policy number 4592493599.” The denial was being made, “because the [motorcycle] policy was not in force when [the] accident occurred.”
15. That on or about July 7, 2020, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Heidi Rodriguez sent correspondence to Plaintiff stating GEICO's investigation and evaluation of the loss was ongoing. Additionally, the letter stated GEICO anticipated obtaining the information relevant to their investigation within 30 days.
16. That on or about November 30, 2020, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Heidi Rodriguez sent correspondence to Plaintiff stating GEICO's investigation and evaluation of the loss was ongoing. Additionally, the letter stated GEICO anticipated obtaining the information relevant to their investigation within 30 days.
17. That on or about March 19, 2021, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Heidi Rodriguez sent correspondence to Plaintiff stating that Defendant GEICO's investigation and evaluation of the loss was ongoing. Additionally, the letter stated GEICO anticipated obtaining the information relevant to their investigation within 30 days.
18. That on or about June 3, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel discussed liability with GEICO adjuster, Heidi Rodriguez. Specifically, counsel stated Plaintiff's position: that if non-party Sergio Picciuto's motorcycle policy was not in force on the day of the collision, the motorcycle was uninsured and Plaintiff was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under her auto policy.
19. That on or about June 11, 2021, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Heidi Rodriguez sent correspondence to Plaintiff stating that their investigation and evaluation of Plaintiff's loss was ongoing. Specifically, the letter stated GEICO needed additional time “to secure a full review of coverage [sic] the policy contract.” Additionally, the letter stated GEICO anticipated obtaining the information relevant to their investigation within 30 days.
20. That on or about July 9, 2021, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Heidi Rodriguez sent correspondence to Plaintiff stating that their investigation and evaluation of Plaintiff's loss was ongoing. Specifically, the letter stated Defendant GEICO needed additional time to secure Plaintiff's theory of coverage. Additionally, the letter stated GEICO anticipated obtaining the information relevant to their investigation within 30 days.
21. That on or about September 17, 2021, Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, requested a copy of the subject policy. Shortly thereafter, a copy of the declarations page was provided.
22. That on or about September 24, 2021, Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, clarified that they were requesting the full policy, not just the declarations page.
23. That on or about September 30, 2021, Plaintiff's representative called Defendant GEICO's adjuster. When this call went unanswered, Plaintiff's representative called a general claims number for GEICO, through which she was able to speak with another of Defendant GEICO's adjusters, who said he would send a message to the handling adjuster regarding our request for a copy of the policy.
24. That on or about October 11, 2021, Plaintiff's representative attempted to contact the handling GEICO adjuster and their supervisor, leaving voicemails for both following up on Plaintiff's request for her policy.
25. That on or about October 19, 2021, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Hami Rath, informed Plaintiff's counsel that the policy had been requested, but it might take a few more days and GEICO would send it over immediately upon receipt.
26. Approximately one week later, on October 27, 2021, Plaintiff's representative called Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Hami Rath, and left a voicemail requesting a status on the policy. Upon information and belief, this call/voicemail went unreturned.
27. On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel faxed a letter to Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Hami Rath, detailing the attempts that Plaintiff has made to receive a copy of Plaintiff's policy and discussing Defendant GEICO's breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, which Defendant GEICO owed to Plaintiff.
28. That same day, November 4, 2021, Defendant GEICO finally provided a copy of policy no. 4559-81-70-53.
29. That on or about November 9, 2021, Plaintiff made a demand for contractual underinsured motorist policy benefits from Defendant GEICO, pursuant to policy no. 4559-81-70-53.
30. That as of November 9, 2021, Plaintiff's total known medical specials amounted to $38,755.96. Plaintiff's Demand included bills and records documenting her injuries, which included multiple fractures of the pelvis, a fracture of the left elbow, and pain throughout most of her body. Plaintiff's request for contractual benefits also included documentation supporting Plaintiff's wage loss claim, which amounted to $4,284.00. In total, Plaintiff's past special damages amounted to $43,039.96.
31. That on December 3, 2021 Defendant GEICO responded to Plaintiff's Demand by requesting clarification on Plaintiff's uninsured motorist claim, “[a]s Sergio Picciuto was the owner of the 2019 Harley Davidson under the policy, [and] it would appear that the motorcycle would not be considered an uninsured vehicle in this policy.”
32. That on December 14, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel spoke with Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Heidi Rodriguez, and sent a letter to Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Hami Rath, in response to Defendant GEICO's December 3, 2021 correspondence. Plaintiff's counsel again explained that Plaintiff was requesting uninsured motorist benefits from policy no. 4559-81-70-53, as Mr. Picciuto's motorcycle policy had lapsed and was not in force on the day of the incident, meaning the motorcycle was in fact uninsured.
33. That on or about January 12, 2022, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Hami Rath, contact Plaintiff's counsel to state that Defendant GEICO was only providing coverage up to the state minimum of $25,000.00 per person. Mr. Rath was unable to articulate the specific reasons for this decision but stated that a letter laying out their position would be sent within a few days.
34. That on or about January 14, 2022, Defendant GEICO issued a check for $25,000.00. That same day, Defendant GEICO's adjuster, Hami Rath, sent correspondence to Plaintiff stating, “[a]s per our discussion, we have disclaimed coverage down to the state minimums for the UM coverage and we issued the check yesterday.”
35. That Defendant GEICO did not provide prior notice that a check would be forthcoming, no explanation was provided with respect to Defendant GEICO's position on Plaintiff pursuing additional settlement monies if Plaintiff were to cash the $25,000.00 check, and as of the date of filing, the check remains uncashed for fear that Defendant GEICO will attempt to use that against Plaintiff.
36. That on January 17, 2022, Defendant GEICO sent correspondence to Plaintiff stating, “ Patricia Zavala is listed as insured under this policy, but the vehicle involved was also owned by an insured Sergio Picciuto. Therefore, the 2019 Harley Davidson does not meet the definition of an insured or uninsured motor vehicle under Section 4 of the auto policy.” GEICO further included language from Section 4, including
a. There is no coverage for bodily injury sustained by an insured while operating, occupying or through being struck by a motor vehicle owned by or available for
the regular use of you or any relative and which is not insured under the liability coverage of this policy.
b. Insured means:
i. The individual named in the declarations and his or her spouse if a resident of the same household;
ii. Relatives of (a) above if residents of his household;
37. That Plaintiff did not own the subject motorcycle and it was not available for the regular use of Plaintiff or any of her relatives.
38. That Plaintiff and non-party Sergio Picciuto previously dated, but were never married and were not related to one another.
39. That Defendant GEICO took the position that Plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the language of the subject policy.
40. That although Defendant GEICO was disclaiming coverage under the subject policy, it provided $25,000.00 in coverage, based upon the statutory law of the State of Nevada.
41. That on March 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent correspondence asking GEICO to reconsider its determination that Plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits, citing to Shaw v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 2610958 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2019) rev'd and remanded, 813 Fed.Appx. 343 (9th Cir. 2020), which is a case involving GEICO wherein GEICO asserted the position that the policy in question's definition of “Insured” was unambiguous. GEICO further argued that the use of “the individual”-rather than “an individual”-must refer to a single person when examining the policy.
42. That according to uninsured benefits portion of Plainitff's policy, Defendant GEICO contracted that it would “pay damaged for bodily injury caused by accident which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle...”
43. That according to Plaintiff's policy, “Insured” means “The individual named in the declarations and his or her spouse if a resident of the same household.”
44. That according to Plaintiff's policy, “You and your means the policyholder named in the declarations or his or her spouse if a resident of the same household.”
45. That Plaintiff's policy included the same “the individual” language that was included in the Shaw policy, as opposed to “an individual,” when defining an “Insured.”
46. That the definition of “You and your” likewise references “the policyholder” not “a policyholder” or “policyholders.” Thus, the word “you” would also refer to a single person when examining the policy.
47. That on April 7, 2022, Defendant GEICO sent correspondence informing Plaintiff that it stood by its decision to interpret the words “you/your” and “insured” in subject policy as meaning the named insureds collectively. Defendant GEICO further stood by its decision to disclaim coverage above the state minimum of $25,000.00 per person/$50,000.00 per accident. This correspondence further stated, “[t]he case [Plaintiff] cited is from a different jurisdiction and [GEICO] believe[s] addresses a different legal argument then [sic] that of the one at hand. [GEICO] would like to reiterate that [its] policy declaration clearly list [sic] both parties as Named Insureds and both parties are considered a, ‘You' under the policy.”
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract)
48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 47 above and incorporates the same by reference as though the same were fully set forth herein.
49. That at all relevant times, all policy no. 4559-81-70-53 premiums were paid and Plaintiff fulfilled all contractual duties and obligations required of her within the subject policy. On the date of loss, Plaintiff was insured within the subject policy and Plaintiff did nothing to disqualify herself from coverage within the subject policy.
50. That by contract, Defendant GEICO, is and was obligated to fully compensate Plaintiff for the harms and losses she sustained in the subject motor vehicle collision, up to the limits of her coverage as noted in Paragraph 6.
51. That Plaintiff timely presented Defendant GEICO, with all of her accident-related medical records and bills; and on or about November 9, 2021, Plaintiff made a demand for contractual uninsured motorist policy benefits from Defendant GEICO.
52. That as of November 9, 2021, Plaintiff's total known medical specials amounted to $38,755.96. Plaintiff's request for contractual benefits also included documentation supporting Plaintiff's wage loss claim, which amounted to $4,284.00.
53. That despite the policy limits of $100,000.00 per person, Defendant GEICO has disclaimed coverage above the state minimum and offered $25,000.00 to resolve Plaintiff's request for contractual benefits.
54. That as a result of Defendant GEICO's conduct, it is in breach of the Insurance contract between the parties and said breach has resulted in damages incurred by Plaintiff in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00) in an amount to be determined at trial.
55. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant GEICO'S conduct and material breach of the respective policies, Plaintiff was compelled to retain counsel to file this Complaint to obtain the benefits of the contracts negotiated by the parties within the respective policies and specifically for the benefits long overdue to Plaintiff.
56. That Defendant, GEICO, is liable to Plaintiff for the attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this Complaint to enforce the terms of the Policy.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing-Common Law Bad Faith)
57. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 56 above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
58. That because of the insurance contract Defendant GEICO and Plaintiff were parties to, Defendant GEICO owed Plaintiff a duty to act in good faith and fair dealing, a duty which is inherent in all insurance contracts.
59. That Plaintiff had the right to expect that Defendant GEICO would evaluate her request for benefits fairly and in good faith.
60. That Defendant GEICO, by failing to reasonably and in good faith evaluate coverage, breached the inherent duty of good faith and fair dealing it owed to Plaintiff.
61. That Defendant GEICO, and/or its agents, also breached the duty owed to Plaintiff, by failing to reasonably properly, fairly, and timely evaluate and tender reasonable uninsured motorist policy benefits owed to Plaintiff, as provided for by the policy of insurance.
62. That Defendant GEICO did not conduct a full, fair, and unbiased evaluation of Plaintiff's request for benefits and the language of the policy in order to arrive at a fair decision regarding coverage for Plaintiff's injuries.
63. That Defendant GEICO's actions throughout the claims process demonstrate that it did not uphold its duty to give equal consideration to Plaintiff's interest and its own interests, in violation of the Nevada Supreme Court case Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300, 212 P.3d 318.
64. That Defendant GEICO, made its determination related to Plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage, deciding that Plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits due to GEICO's self-serving interpretation of exclusion language and definitions within the policy.
65. That Defendant GEICO cited various language from Plaintiff's policy to support its position to disclaim coverage above the state minimum, with one such assertion being that Plaintiff and non-party Sergio Picciuto were collectively considered “You” under the policy and “Insured” likewise referred to them collectively.
66. That Defendant GEICO maintained this determination even when confronted with language from Plaintiff s policy stating, “Insured” means “the individual named in the declarations...” and “You or your” means “the policyholder named in the declarations.” along with documentation that GEICO had previously argued that the term “Insured” is unambiguous and use of “the individual” rather than “an individual” in the definition of “Insured” must refer to a single person.
67. That Defendant GEICO failed to reasonably evaluate Plaintiff's uninsured motorist claim as GEICO dismissed the provided language and stood by its determination, despite the fact that in Shaw v. GEICO, Defendant GEICO's own pleadings directly controvert their arguments related to Plaintiff's request for benefits.
68. That Defendant GEICO's conduct, when taken in its entirety, constitutes a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that GEICO owed to Plaintiff.
69. That as a proximate result of the unreasonable and wrongful conduct of Defendant, GEICO, Plaintiff has suffered financial damages, anxiety, worry, mental and emotional distress and other incidental damages all to Plaintiff's general damage in an amount in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00).
70. That Defendant GEICO's conduct described herein subjected and continues to subject Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard to Plaintiff's rights constituting fraud, oppression and malice, entitling Plaintiff to punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00) sufficient to punish or set an example of Defendant GEICO.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Unfair Claim Practices Act-Statutory Bad Faith)
71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 70 above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
72. That Defendant GEICO is a member of the class of entities intended to be regulated by Nevada Revised Statutes 686A.310, et seq.
73. That Plaintiff is a member of the class of persons sought to be protected by Nevada Revised Statutes 686A.310, et seq.
74. That by the aforesaid acts and omissions, Defendant GEICO has violated its statutory duties contained within Nevada Revised Statutes 686A.310 , et seq.
75. That Defendant GEICO misrepresented pertinent facts and/or policy provisions related to Plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage, in violation of NRS 686A.310(a) by providing inconsistent information related to Defendant GEICO's investigation and evaluation of Plaintiff's claim.
76. That Defendant GEICO misrepresented pertinent facts and/or policy provisions related to Plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage, in violation of NRS 686A.310(a) by providing inconsistent information related to Defendant GEICO's reasoning for disclaiming coverage above the state minimum and deciding an exclusion applied to Plaintiff's claim. Namely:
I. On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff received correspondence from Defendant GEICO adjuster, Hami Rath, stating, “Patricia Zavala is listed as insured under this policy, but the vehicle involved was also owned by an insured Sergio Picciuto. Therefore, the 2019 Harley Davidson does not meet the definition of an insured or uninsured motor vehicle under Section 4 of the auto policy.” The letter further provided language from Section 4, exclusion 2 and Section 4's definitions of “uninsured motor vehicle” and “insured.”
II. On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff received correspondence from Defendant GEICO adjuster, Hami Rath, stating, “as Patricia Zavala is a co-insured under the policy, she qualifies as a ‘you' under the policy. She may not have owned the vehicle herself or had access to it, but the general part of insurance would be that any insured/co-insured would have access of any vehicle on the policy. Thus, Patricia Zavala would fit under the ‘you' category as listed in the definitions.”
III. On February 8, 2022, Plaintiff received correspondence from Defendant GEICO adjuster, Courtney West, stating GEICO was disclaiming coverage above the state minimum because Patricia Zavala is listed as insured under this policy, while the vehicle involved was also owned by her co-insured Sergio Dean Picciuto. Therefore, the 2019 Harley Davidson does not meet the definition of an owned or non owned auto under this policy.”
IV. On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff received correspondence from Defendant GEICO adjuster, Courtney West, stating GEICO “would like to reiterate that [its] policy declaration clearly list [sic] both parties as Named Insured and both parties are considered a ‘You' under the policy.”
77. That Defendant GEICO failed to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies, in violation of NRS 686A.310(b). Specifically, numerous calls and letters to Defendant GEICO went unanswered.
78. That Defendant GEICO failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under insurance policies, in violation of NRS 686A.310(c), as between July 2020 and July 2021, Defendant GEICO sent periodic letters stating that GEICO was in the process of evaluating Plaintiff's claim and benefits and expected to obtain the relevant information necessary within thirty days. However, it was not until after Plaintiff submitted her request for contractual benefits that Defendant GEICO provided its determination and official position related to coverage in January 2022.
79. That Defendant GEICO failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under insurance policies, in violation of NRS 686A.310(c), as on or about September 24, 2021, Plaintiff requested a copy of policy no. 4559-81-7053. Although Defendant GEICO claimed to have been investigating coverage for more than a year when Plaintiff requested a copy of her own policy, Plaintiff was forced to repeatedly follow up with Defendant GEICO's adjusters and their supervisor with regard to receiving a copy of said policy. A copy of said policy was not provided to Plaintiff until November 4, 2021.
80. That Defendant GEICO failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under insurance policies, in violation of NRS 686A.310(c), as GEICO was aware of Plaintiff's intention to file an uninsured motorist claim and discussed Plaintiff's theory of coverage on June 3, 2021 but failed to reach an official position on coverage until January 2022.
81. That Defendant GEICO failed to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement of Plaintiff's claim even though coverage had become reasonably clear, in violation of NRS 686A.310(e), as Defendant GEICO decided to disclaim coverage above the state minimum despite the fact that Plaintiff was injured while riding an uninsured motorcycle owned and used by someone other than herself or a relative.
82. That Defendant GEICO attempted to settle a claim on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured, in violation of NRS 686A.310(h) by disclaiming coverage and sending a check for the state minimum policy limits of $25,000.00 without first discussing Defendant GEICO was doing so and without providing sufficient information related to its reasoning for doing so or whether cashing the check would have any adverse effect on continuing to pursue Plaintiff's claim.
83. That Defendant GEICO failed to promptly provide Plaintiff with a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy for its determination, in violation of NRS 686A.310(c), as Defendant GEICO failed to provide a prompt and/or reasonable explanation for its decision that the subject loss was excluded under the policy and to disclaim coverage above the state minimum policy limits.
84. That as a proximate result of Defendant, GEICO's breach of its statutory duties, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them as follows:
1. For contractual damages up to the amount of the underinsured motorist policy limits applicable to Plaintiff;
2. For general damages in an amount in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00);
3. For medical and incidental expenses incurred and to be incurred resulting from the subject collision;
4. For damages for lost earnings and earning capacity incurred and to be incurred resulting from the subject collision caused by the underinsured driver;
5. For damages incurred pursuant to NRS 686A.310(f);
6. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00) sufficient to punish or make an example of Defendant, GEICO; and, 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems is just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys of record, LLOYD BAKER INJURY ATTORNEYS, hereby demands a jury trial of all of the issues in the above matter.