Geico Casualty Company v. Schneider et al

Filing 45

ORDER that the portion of 27 GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment addressing the UIM coverage is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 25 the Schneiders' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on July 18, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Las Vegas courtroom 6C to discuss the scheduling and details of a trial. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,
4

Plaintiff

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00961-APG-VCF
Order Denying Motions for Summary
Judgment and Setting Hearing

5 v.
[ECF Nos. 25, 27]
6 PAUL SCHNEIDER; KIMBERLY
SCHNEIDER; and CASANDRA
7 SCHNEIDER,
8
9

Defendants
At the hearing on May 30, 2018, I ordered the parties to submit supplemental affidavits

10 and briefs on the validity of the anti-stacking provision of GEICO’s uninsured/underinsured
11 motorist (UIM) coverage. After considering the parties’ briefs and GEICO’s affidavit, I find a
12 question of fact remains as to whether GEICO has met the statutory requirements.
13

Under Nevada Revised Statutes § 687B.145(1), an anti-stacking provision will be void if

14 “the named insured has purchased separate coverage on the same risk and has paid a premium
15 calculated for full reimbursement under that coverage.” The insurer has the burden to show that
16 a “different [UIM] premium amount was charged for each separate policy (thus showing that
17 each policy covered a separate and unique risk) or that the insured received a discount for the
18 anti-stacking provision.” Schneider v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 2:14-cv-01932- JAD19 CWH, 2016 WL 4520907, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2016) (citations omitted).
20

GEICO’s submits the affidavit of its Assistant Vice President of Pricing, Product and

21 Reserving Department, which states that in Nevada, UIM “coverage for a policy is calculated for
22 a single amount of coverage.” ECF No. 43-1 at 3. This calculation starts with a base rate, which
23 “represents the starting dollar amount . . . used to calculate the premium for one covered

1 exposure[,] . . . defined as one insured vehicle for one year.” Id. Several factors are applied to
2 the base rate. Finally, as to the Schneider’s policy, “[a]fter accounting for the 6 vehicles on the
3 policy, a ‘Multi Vehicle Discount’ factor is applied.” Id. at 5. The affidavit states this discount
4 factor was .6935, but does not explain how it was calculated or whether it is a discount given for
5 the anti-stacking provision or something else, such as the business generated by multiple lines of
6 business. See id.; see also Tenas v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 238 P.3d 860, 2008 WL
7 6113368, at *3 (Nev. Sept. 16, 2008) (finding a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of
8 an anti-stacking provision where the policy declarations page “provides a ‘multi-car
9 discount’ . . . [but did] not unambiguously state whether [the insured] had received a discount as
10 to anti-stacking”). Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the validity of the UIM
11 anti-stacking provision, and granting either party’s motions for summary judgment on this issue
12 would be inappropriate.
13

GEICO has demanded, and has the right to, a jury trial. See ECF No. 1; Kam-Ko Bio-

14 Pharm Trading Co., Ltd-Australasia v. Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 560 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir.
15 2009) (“[I]n a declaratory relief action, as in other civil actions, a party has an absolute right to a
16 jury trial unless a jury has been waived.” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted)). Given the
17 limited nature of the facts at issue, the parties should confer about whether they want a jury or a
18 bench trial. I will hold a hearing to discuss the scheduling and details of a trial on July 18, 2018.
19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the portion of GEICO’s motion for summary

20 judgment (ECF No. 27) addressing the UIM coverage is DENIED.
21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Schneiders’ motion for summary judgment (ECF

22 No. 25) is DENIED.
23

2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on July 18, 2018

2 at 1:30 p.m. in Las Vegas courtroom 6C to discuss the scheduling and details of a trial.
3

DATED this 9th day of July, 2018.

4
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

3