`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`Electronically Filed
`Apr 10 2025 05:41 PM
`Elizabeth A. Brown
`Clerk of Supreme Court
`
`USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
`COMPANY,
`
`Appellant,
`
`vs.
`
`TIMOTHY TODD KUHN, individual,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Docket No. 90310
`
`DOCKE TING STATE ME NT CIVIL AP P E ALS
`
`GENERAL INFORMATION
`Appellants must complete this docketing statement in compliance with Nevada Rules of
`Appellate Procedure (NRAP) 14(a). The purpose of the docketing statement is to assist
`the Supreme Court in screening jurisdiction, identifying issues on appeal, assessing
`assignment to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, scheduling cases for oral argument
`and settlement conferences, classifying cases for expedited treatment, and compiling
`statistical information.
`
`WARNING
`
`This statement must be completed fully, accurately, and on time. NRAP 14(c). The
`Supreme Court may impose sanctions on counsel or the appellant if it appears that the
`information provided is incomplete or inaccurate. Id. Failure to fill out the statement
`completely or to file it in a timely manner constitutes grounds for the imposition of
`sanctions, including a fine and/or dismissal of the appeal. Id.
`
`A complete list of the documents that must be attached appears as Question 28 on this
`docketing statement. Failure to attach all required documents will result in the delay of
`your appeal and may result in the imposition of sanctions. Id.
`1
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`Docket 90310 Document 2025-16310
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`This court has noted that when obligations under NRAP 14 to complete the docketing
`statement properly and conscientiously are not taken seriously, valuable judicial resources
`of this court are wasted, making the imposition of sanctions appropriate. See KDI Sylvan
`Pools v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 344, 810 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1991). Please use divider
`pages to separate any attached documents.
`
`1. Judicial District: Eighth
`Judge: Gloria Sturman
`Department: 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
` County: Clark
`District Ct. Case No.: A-20-821602-C
`
`2. Person filing this docketing statement:
`Adam Hosmer-Henner
`McDonald Carano LLP
`2300 West Sahara Avenue, Ste. 1200
`
`Bar # 12779
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
`(702) 873-4100
`ahosmerhenner@mcdonaldcarano.com
`Client name(s) (if represented by counsel): USAA Casualty Insurance Company
`If this is a joint statement by multiple appellants, add the names and addresses
`of the other appellants and, if applicable, the names of their counsel and have
`them sign the certification below.
`
`N/A
`
`Client name(s) (if represented by counsel):
`
` certify I concur in the filing of this statement.
`
` I
`
`Signature of other appellant(s) or of counsel for other appellant
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3. Nature of disposition below (check all that apply):
` Judgment after bench trial
` Judgment after jury verdict
` Summary judgment
` Default judgment
` Grant/Denial of NRCP 60(b) relief
` Grant/Denial of injunction
` Dismissal:
` Lack of jurisdiction
` Failure to state a claim
` Failure to prosecute
` Other (specify):
` Divorce Decree:
` Original
` Modification
` Grant/Denial of declaratory relief
` Review of agency determination
` Other disposition (specify): Motion to Dismiss Intervention of USAA CIC
`4. Does this appeal raise issues concerning any of the following?
` Child Custody
` Venue
` Termination of parental rights
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Pending and prior proceedings in this court. List the case name and docket number of
`all appeals or original proceedings presently or previously pending before this court which
`are related to this appeal:
`
`Kuhn previously filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus on February
`27, 2025, Timothy Todd Kuhn v. The Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of
`Nevada in the Nevada Supreme Court, Case No. 90207. The Emergency Petition for
`Writ of Mandamus was denied on February 28, 2025.
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`3
`
`

`

`6. Pending and prior proceedings in other courts. List the case name, number and court
`of all pending and prior proceedings in other courts which are related to this appeal (e.g.,
`bankruptcy, consolidated or bifurcated proceedings) and their dates of disposition:
`
`N/A
`
`7. Nature of the action. Briefly describe the nature of the action and the result below:
`Kuhn, the insured, filed an insurance claim with his insurer, USAA CIC, after Hector
`Adrian Cervantes-Andrade (“Cervantes-Andrade”) rear-ended his car. Kuhn alleged that
`USAA CIC improperly denied his request for the full policy limits and filed a complaint
`alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) breach of contract, (3) bad faith as to
`USAA CIC’s breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
`USAA CIC later filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on May 3, 2024, which
`was denied without prejudice by the Court. On February 25, 2025, the Court dismissed
`USAA CIC Intervention and held that USAA Casualty Insurance Company is no longer
`an Intervenor.
`After the close of discovery, USAA CIC tendered the policy limit of $250,000 to Kuhn.
`Nevertheless, the case proceeded to trial, consisting of two days of voir dire and five days
`of argument and testimony. The jury returned a verdict of $7 million in compensatory
`damages against Cervantes-Andrade for damages suffered as a result of the accident and
`returned a verdict against USAA CIC consisting of $7 million in compensatory damages
`and $100 million in punitive damages.
`
`8. Issues on appeal. State concisely the principal issue(s) in this appeal:
`1) Whether USAA CIC was correctly dismissed as an Intervenor.
`2) Whether USAA CIC's request for partial summary judgment was incorrectly denied.
`3) Whether USAA CIC is entitled to a new trial or substantial remittitur because the
`damage awards are excessive, tainted by passion and prejudice, and unconstitutional?
`4) Whether USAA CIC is entitled to a new trial based on the juror misconduct from a
`juror's to disclose USAA CIC membership and a prior dispute with USAA CIC?
`5) Whether USAA CIC is entitled to a new trial based on the misconduct of Plaintiff's
`counsel, including repeated violations of the litigation privilege ?
`6) Whether the damage awards were supported by substantial evidence?
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`9. Pending proceedings in this court raising the same or similar issues.
`If you are aware of any proceedings presently pending before this court which raises the
`same or similar issues raised in this appeal, list the case name and docket numbers and
`identify the same or similar issue raised:
`N/A
`
`
`10. Constitutional issues: Does this appeal challenge the constitutionality of a Nevada
`Statute or ordinance?
` No. Continue to #11.
` Yes:
`a. Identify the Nevada statute or ordinance being
`challenged:
`b. Is the State, any State agency, or a State officer or
`employee a party to this appeal in an official capacity?
`Yes
` No.
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Other issues.
`a. Does this appeal involve any of the following issues?
`
`
` Reversal of well-settled Nevada precedent (identify the case(s))
` An issue arising under the United States and/or Nevada Constitutions
` A substantial issue of first impression
` An issue of public policy
` An issue where en banc consideration is necessary to maintain uniformity
`of this court's decisions
` A ballot question
`b. If so, explain:
`The errors that led to the $107 million award against USAA CIC in this single-
`plaintiff insurance case were substantial. The awards of $7 million in
`compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages are excessive and
`5
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`

`

`violate USAA CIC's rights under the United States and Nevada Constitutions.
`The questions of whether the verdict was tainted by juror misconduct and by
`passion and prejudice arising from the misconduct of Plaintiff's counsel also
`raises substantial issues. Finally, whether Nevada law allows the imposition of
`a $100 million sanction on an insurer that investigated a coverage dispute and
`ultimately paid the full policy limits prior to trial raises substantial issues of
`public policy.
`
`12. Assignment to the Court of Appeals or retention in the Supreme Court.
`Briefly set forth whether the matter is retained by the Supreme Court or presumptively
`assigned to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, and cite the subparagraph(s) of the
`Rule under which the matter falls.
`This matter is presumptively retained by the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17(b)(7),
`appeals from post-judgment orders in civil cases. However, the Supreme Court
`should retain this case pursuant to NRAP 17(d)(2) because the $107 million award,
`including $100 million awarded in punitive damages, raises issues of statewide
`public importance and raises both state and federal constitutional interpretation
`questions, including whether the awards violate USAA CIC's due process rights.
`
`13. Trial. If this action proceeded to trial, how many days did the trial last? 7 days.
`Was it a:
` bench trial
` jury trial?
`
`14. Judicial Disqualification. Do you intend to file a motion to disqualify or have a
`justice/judge recuse him/herself from participation in this appeal? See NRAP 35.
`If so, which Justice/Judge? N/A
`
`15. Oral argument. Would you object to submission of this appeal for disposition without
` Yes
`oral argument?
` No
`
`TIMELINESS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
`16. Date the written judgment(s) or order(s) appealed from was/were filed in the district court:
`October 23, 2024; February 14, 2025; and February 25, 2025
`
`If no written judgment or order has been filed in the district court, explain the basis for
`seeking appellate review:
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`17. Date written notice of entry of the judgment(s) or order(s) was/were served:
`October 24, 2024; February 14, 2025; and February 25, 2025
`Was service by:
` Electronic or personal delivery
` Mail
`
`
`
`
`
`18. Were any motions seeking relief under NRCP 50(b), 52(b), 59, or 60 or seeking rehearing
`or reconsideration filed in the district court either before or after the notice of appeal was
`filed? (attach a copy of the motion)
` No, continue to # 19.
` Yes:
`a. Specify the type of motion and the date the motion was filed in the district
`court (check all that apply)
`Date filed:
` NRCP 50(b)
`Date filed:
` NRCP 52(b)
`Date filed: 3/14/2025
` NRCP 59
`Date filed: 3/14/2025
` NRCP 60
`Date filed:
` Rehearing/Reconsideration
`b. How was the motion served: Electronic or personal delivery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. Date the motion was served: 3/14/2025
` Electronic or personal delivery
` Mail
`d. Date the written order resolving the motion was filed: N/A
`e. Date written notice of entry of the order resolving the motion was served: N/A
`f. Was service by:
` Electronic or personal delivery
` Mail
`
`
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`7
`
`

`

`19. Are there any motions other than those identified in #18 above still pending in the district
`court?
`
`
`
` Yes. Identify the motion and the date it was filed in the district court:
`Motion for Attorney Fees; Motion to Retax; and Motion to Stay
`
` No.
`
`20. Date the notice of appeal was filed in the district court: 03/17/2025
`If more than one party has appealed from the judgment or order, list the date each notice
`of appeal was filed and identify by name the party filing the notice of appeal:
`N/A
`21. Specify the statute or rule governing the time limit for filing the notice of appeal, e.g.,
`NRAP 4(a) or other: NRAP 4(a)
`
`SUBSTANTIVE APPEALABILITY
`22. Specify the statute or other authority granting this court jurisdiction to review the
`judgment or order appealed from:
`a.
`
`
`
` NRAP 3A(b)(2)
` NRAP 3A(b)(1)
` NRAP 3A(b)(4)
`NRAP 3A(b)(3)
` NRAP 3A(b)(6)
`NRAP 3A(b)(5)
` NRAP 3A(b)(8)
`NRAP 3A(b)(7)
` NRAP 3A(b)(10)
`NRAP 3A(b)(9)
` NRAP 3A(b)(12)
`NRAP 3A(b)(11)
` NRS 233B.150
`NRS 38.205
`
`Other (specify):
`NRS 703.376
`b. Explain how each authority provides a basis for appeal from the judgment or
`order:
`As a timely NRCP 59 Motion to Amend/Alter Judgment and for New Trial has been
`filed and not resolved, the appeal potentially may be premature, but the appeal was
`filed out of an abundance of caution as there was a separate Order of Dismissal of
`USAA CIC as an Intervenor that was issued separately and not part of the Judgment
`after trial.
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`23. List all parties involved in the action or consolidated actions in the district court:
`a. Parties:
`Plaintiff: Timothy Todd Kuhn
`Defendants: Hector Adrian Cervantes-Andrade; USAA Casualty
`Insurance Company
`Intervenors: Hudson Insurance Company
`
`b. If all parties in the district court are not parties to this appeal, explain in detail
`why those parties are not involved in this appeal, e.g., formally dismissed,
`not served, or other:
`
`24. Give a brief description (3 to 5 words) of each party's separate claims, counterclaims,
`cross-claims, or third-party claims and the date of formal disposition of each claim.
`Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleged a claim for negligence against Cervantes-
`Andrade and claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith of fair
`dealing against USAA CIC.
`
`25. Did the judgment or order appealed from adjudicate ALL of the claims alleged below and
`the rights and liabilities of ALL of the parties to the action or consolidated actions below?
` Yes
` No
`
`26. If you answered "No" to question 25, complete the following:
`a. Specify the claims remaining pending below:
`All claims affected by the NRCP 59 Motion to Alter or Amend or for New Trial.
`b. Specify the parties remaining below:
`c. Did the district court certify the judgment or order appealed from as a
`final judgment pursuant to NRCP 54(b)?
` Yes
` No
`
`d. Did the district court make an express determination, pursuant to NRCP 54(b),
`that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for the entry of
`judgment?
` Yes
` No
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`27. If you answered "No" to any part of question 26, explain the basis for seeking appellate
`review (e.g., order is independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)):
`The Order to Dismiss Intervention of USAA CIC may be independently appealable
`under NRAP 3A.
`
`28. Attach file-stamped copies of the following documents:
`• The latest-filed complaint, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims
`• Any motion(s) identified in questions 18 and the order(s) resolving the
`motion(s)
`• Any motions identified in question 19
`• Orders or NRCP 41(a)(1) dismissals that formally resolve each claim,
`counterclaim, cross- claim and/or third-party claim asserted in the action or
`consolidated action below, even if not at issue on appeal
`• All orders that finally disposes of any parties in the action below, even if not
`at issue on appeal
`• Any other order challenged on appeal
`• Notices of entry for each attached order
`
`VERIFICATION
`I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this docketing statement, that the
`information provided in this docketing statement is true and complete to the best of
`my knowledge, information, and belief, and that I have attached all required
`documents to this docketing statement.
`
`/s/ Adam Hosmer-Henner (NSBN 12779)
`Washoe County, Nevada
`
` Date: 4/10/25
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`10
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
` I certify that on the April 10, 2025, I served a copy of this completed docketing
`statement upon all parties to this appeal:
` by electronic means to registered users of the court’s electronic filing
`system.
`If served other than through the court's electronic filing system, enter the
`names and email address of the parties served by this means and attach a
`copy of ea ch party’s written consent authorizing service by this means. See
`NRAP 25(c)(2).
`by personally serving it upon him/her;
`
`by mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the
`following address(es):
`
`James R. Olson (NSBN 000116)
`Francis Arenas (NSBN 6557)
`OLSON CANNON & GORMLEY
`9950 West Cheyenne Avenue
`Las Vegas, NV 89129
`Attorneys for Hudson Insurance Group
`
`Hector Adrian Cervantes-Andrade
`9845 Poplar Points Court
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89141
`
`Dated: April 10, 2025
`
`/s/ Jacqueline Carstenbrook
`An employee of McDonald Carano LLP
`
`Last updated 08/2024
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`ACOM
`
`KIMBALL JONES, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 12982
`
`JOSHUA P. BERRETT, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 12697
`
`BIGHORN LAW
`2225 E. Flamingo Road
`
`Bldg. 2, Suite 300
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
`Phone: (702) 333-1111
`Josh@BighornLaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`Electronically Filed
`7/1/2021 12:24 PM
`Steven D. Grierson
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`CASE NO: A-20-821602-C
`
`DEPT. NO: XXVI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TIMOTHY TODD KUHN, individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`HECTOR ADRIAN CERVANTES-
`
`ANDRADE; USAA CASUALTY
`
`INSURANCE COMPNAY; DOE DRIVER I-V;
`
`ROE OWNER I-V; DOE OWNER 1-V; ROE
`EMPLOYER I-V, ROE COMPANY I-V,
`DOES I-X, ROES I-X,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`COMES NOW the Plaintiff, TIMOTHY TODD KUHN, by and through his attorneys,
`
`KIMBALL JONES, ESQ. and JOSHUA P. BERRETT, ESQ., of the Law Firm of BIGHORN
`LAW, and for his causes of action against the Defendant, and each of them, alleges as follows:
`That Plaintiff, TIMOTHY TODD KUHN (hereinafter “TIMOTHY” and/or “PLAINTIFF”),
`1.
`was at all times relevant to this action a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`Case Number: A-20-821602-C
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Upon information and belief, that at all times relevant to this action Defendant HECTOR
`ADRIAN CERVANTES-ANDRADE (hereinafter “HECTOR” and/or “DEFENDANT”), is
`and was a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
`Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Defendant USAA
`CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “USAA” and/or “DEFENDANTS”),
`was a business entity licensed to conduct business and doing business in Clark County,
`Nevada and was an “insurer” as defined by NRS 679A.100
`Upon information and belief, that at all times relevant to this action Defendant(s) HECTOR
`and/or DOE DRIVER was driving a vehicle driven by Defendant(s) HECTOR and/or DOE
`OWNER and/or ROE OWNER at the time of the collision.
`Upon information and belief, that at all times relevant to this action, Defendant(s) DOE
`DRIVER, was and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
`Upon information and belief, that at all times relevant to this action, Defendant(s) DOE
`OWNER, was and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
`Upon information and belief, that at all times relevant to this action, Defendant(s) ROE
`OWNER, was an entity doing business in the State of Nevada.
`Upon information and belief, that at all times relevant to this action, Defendant(s) ROE
`COMPANY, was an entity doing business in the State of Nevada and was directing the
`course and scope of the actions of Defendants, and each of them, at the time of the incident
`herein described.
`Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Defendant(s) ROE
`EMPLOYER was employing Defendant(s), and each of them, and each of said Defendant(s)
`were acting in the course and scope of said employment at all times relevant to the incident
`described herein.
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`That the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, associate or
`otherwise, of Defendants, DOES I through V and ROES I through V, are unknown to
`Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that each of the Defendant(s) designated
`herein as DOE and ROE are responsible in some manner for the events and happenings
`referred to and caused damages proximately to Plaintiff as herein alleged, and that Plaintiff
`will ask leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of
`DOES I through V and ROES I through V, when the same have been ascertained, and to join
`such Defendants in this action.
`That upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant(s) HECTOR
`and/or DOE DRIVER was the driver of a motor vehicle, believed to be a 2018 Ford F-150,
`bearing license plate number 940F69 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s Vehicle”),
`owned by Defendant(s) HECTOR and/or DOE OWNER and/or ROE OWNER.
`That on or about October 3, 2018, Defendant(s) HECTOR and/or DOE DRIVER was the
`operator of Defendant’s Vehicle, which was immediately behind Plaintiff’s Vehicle.
`That on or about October 3, 2018, Defendant(s) HECTOR and/or DOE DRIVER was the
`operator of Defendant’s Vehicle, when he negligently, recklessly, and carelessly caused the
`same to collide with Plaintiff’s Vehicle.
`That Defendant(s) HECTOR and/or DOE DRIVER had a duty to drive in a reasonable and
`safe manner and to follow the rules of the road.
`That Defendant(s) HECTOR and/or DOE DRIVER breached this duty to PLAINTIFF by
`negligently colliding with Plaintiff’s Vehicle.
`That the collision occurred on the public streets in Clark County, Nevada.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Plaintiff incorporates by this reference all of the allegations of paragraphs above, as though
`completely set forth herein.
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`24.
`
`25.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`That on or about October 3, 2018, PLAINTIFF was operating a motor vehicle believed to be
`a 2014 BMW 5 Series (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”), eastbound on IR 215,
`in Las Vegas, Clark County Nevada.
`That at that time and place, Defendant HECTOR, and/or DOE DRIVER, was operating
`Defendant’s Vehicle, also eastbound on IR 215, in Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada,
`directly behind Plaintiff’s Vehicle.
`That at that time and place, Defendant HECTOR and/or DOE DRIVER was following too
`close and failed to stop Defendant’s Vehicle, causing it to violently crash into the rear of
`Plaintiff’s Vehicle.
`That Defendant USAA was contractually obligated to provide coverage benefits from its
`underinsured motorist policy to PLAINTIFF for bodily injuries PLAINTIFF sustained in the
`subject crash.
`That Defendant USAA failed to reasonably investigate PLAINTIFF’s bodily injury claims.
`That Defendant USAA failed to adjust and make reasonable payments to PLAINTIFF as
`Defendant USAA was contractually obligated to do.
`That at the time of the collision herein complained of, and immediately prior thereto,
`Defendants, and each of them, in breaching a duty owed to PLAINTIFF, were negligent,
`reckless and careless, inter alia, in the following particulars:
`A. In failing to keep Defendant’s Vehicle under proper control;
`B. In operating Defendant’s Vehicle without due caution for the rights of the Plaintiff;
`C. In failing to keep a proper lookout for Plaintiff’s Vehicle and other vehicles in front of
`them;
`D. In failing to obey the traffic laws, rules and/or regulations;
`E. In operating Defendant’s Vehicle at an excessive rate of speed;
`F. In failing to use due care in DEFENDANT’s operation of Defendant’s Vehicle’
`G. In failing to stop Defendant’s Vehicle when traffic ahead of Plaintiff’s Vehicle stopped;
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`H. In operating Defendant’s Vehicle in a reckless manner without regard for others;
`I. In violating NRS 484B.127;
`J. Negligent hiring, supervision, training and/or entrustment;
`K. Vicarious liability through the operation of NRS 41.440;
`L. Vicarious liability through operation of NRS 41.130;
`M. Respondeat superior;
`N. The Defendants, and each of them, violated certain state and local statutes, rules,
`regulations, codes and ordinances, and Plaintiff will pray leave of Court to insert the exact
`citations at the time of trial.
`By reason of the premises, and as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence
`and carelessness of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff, suffered loss of property in an
`amount not yet fully determined.
`By reason of the premises, and as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence
`and carelessness of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered physical injury and was
`otherwise injured in and about his hands, head, neck, back, legs, arms, organs, and systems,
`and was otherwise injured and caused to suffer great pain of body and mind, and all or some
`of the same is chronic and may be permanent and disabling, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an
`amount in excess of $15,000.00.
`By reason of the premises, and as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence
`and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been caused to expend
`monies for medical and miscellaneous expenses, and will in the future be caused to expend
`additional monies for medical expenses and miscellaneous expenses incidental thereto, in a
`sum not yet presently ascertainable, and leave of Court will be requested to include said
`additional damages when the same have been fully determined.
`Prior to the injuries complained of herein, Plaintiff was an able-bodied individual, capable of
`being gainfully employed and capable of engaging in all other activities for which Plaintiff,
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`was otherwise suited. By reason of the premises, and as a direct and proximate result of the
`negligence of the said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was caused to be disabled and
`limited and restricted in his occupations and activities, which caused Plaintiff a loss of wages
`in an unascertainable amount as of this time, and/or diminution of Plaintiff’s earning capacity
`and future loss of wages, all to his damage in a sum not yet presently ascertainable, the
`allegations of which Plaintiff prays leave of Court to insert herein when the same shall be
`fully determined.
`Plaintiff has been required to retain the Law Offices of BIGHORN LAW to prosecute this
`action, and is entitled to recover Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, case costs and prejudgment
`interest.
`As a further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of Defendants, and each
`of them, PLAINTIFFS have incurred property damage and other incidental damages in a sum
`to be determined at the time of trial.
`That this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to NRS 4.370(1), as
`the matter in controversy exceeds $15,000.00, exclusive of attorney’s fees, interest, and
`costs.
`That this Court has personal jurisdiction in this matter, as the incidents, transactions and
`occurrences that comprise the basis of this lawsuit took place in Clark County, Nevada.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Breach of Contract
`PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all of the allegations of paragraphs above, as
`though completely set forth herein.
`On October 3, 2018, and for some time prior thereto, PLAINTIFF was covered by a policy of
`automobile insurance from DEFENDANT USAA (hereinafter “the POLICY”).
`On October 4, 2018, PLAINTIFF sent a representation letter to Defendant USAA advising
`that PLAINTIFF, its insured, had been in a crash.
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`On October 4, 2018, Defendant USAA sent an acknowledgement letter, which also indicated
`that Plaintiff had a policy of $300,000 in underinsured coverage for this subject crash.
`On November 13, 2020, PLAINTIFF submitted copies of his medical bills and records to
`Defendant USAA.
`PLAINTIFF continues to suffer from his injuries sustained in the crash.
`On February 10, 2021, PLAINTIFF submitted additional information to Defendant USAA
`related to PLAINTIFF’S injuries and treatment related to the crash.
`Instead of acting in the benefit of its insured and taking reasonable measures to investigate
`the injuries and records submitted by PLAINTIFF and appropriately adjust the claims
`accordingly, Defendant USAA failed to make any payment for PLAINTIFF’s damages, and
`on February 25, 2021, Defendant USAA filed a Motion to Intervene in this Matter.
`Defendant USAA has failed to reasonably adjust and make payment for PLAINTIFF’s claim
`under the POLICY.
`Defendant USAA’s failure to adjust and pay PLAINTIFF’s benefits due under the POLICY
`for PLAINTIFF’s claim, arising from the motor vehicle collision of October 3, 2018, was a
`material breach of the insurance contract.
`As a result of Defendant USAA’s breach of contract, PLAINTIFF incurred compensatory
`and/or expectation damages in an amount in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
`As a result of Defendant USAA’s breach of contract, PLAINTIFF incurred foreseeable
`consequential and incidental damages, in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Bad Faith as to Defendant USAA’s Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`
`PLAINTIFF incorporates by this reference all of the allegations of paragraphs above, as
`though completely set forth herein.
`Defendant USAA failed to deal fairly and in good faith with PLAINTIFF, by denying or
`failing to pay benefits without proper cause, under PLAINTIFF’s underinsured motorist
`policy.
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`As a result of the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, PLAINTIFF is
`entitled to damages for denied or failing to pay underinsured benefits under the POLICY.
`PLAINTIFF is also entitled to consequential damages, including attorneys’ fees, and
`emotional distress, incurred as a result of Defendant USAA’s breach of the implied covenant
`of good faith and fair dealing, in an amount in excess of fifteen thousand dollars
`($15,000.00).
`Defendant USAA denied or failed to pay PLAINTIFF’s underinsured benefits under the
`POLICY with a conscious disregard for the rights of PLAINTIFF which rise to the level of
`oppression, fraud, or malice and that Defendant USAA subjected PLAINTIFF to cruel and
`unjust hardship, PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount in excess
`of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, expressly reserving the right herein to include all items of damage,
`
`demands judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
`
`1. General damages for Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $15,000.00;
`2. Special damages for Plaintiff’s medical and miscellaneous expenses as of this date, plus
`future medical expenses and the miscellaneous expenses incidental thereto in a presently
`unascertainable amount;
`3. Special damages for lost wages in a presently unascertainable amount, and/or diminution
`of the earning capacity of Plaintiff, plus possible future loss of earnings and/or diminution of said
`Plaintiff’s earning capacity in a presently unascertainable amount.
`4. Special damages for Plaintiff’s incurred property damage and other incidental damages;
`5. Compensatory and/or expectation damages, for denied policy benefits in an amount in
`excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00);
`6. Consequential and/or incidental damages, including attorney’s fees, and emotional
`distress in an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00);
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`7. Punitive and exemplary damages for said Plaintiff in an amount in excess of Fifteen
`Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00);
`8. Costs of this suit;
`9. Prejudgment interest;
`10. Attorney's fees; and
`
`11. For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper in the
`premises.
`DATED this 1st day of July, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BIGHORN LAW
`
`By:__/s/ Joshua P. Ber