Nevada Judiciary

Beazer Homes vs. District Court (View of Black Mountain)

Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Full Court

Progressive Gulf Insurance Co. vs. Faehnrich (NRAP 5)

Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court

Beazer Homes vs. District Court (View of Black Mountain),

Docket No. 57187

Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Full Court

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order determining that a homeowners' association could litigate construction defect claims on behalf of its members without meeting NRCP 23's class action prerequisites.  Petitioner Beazer Homes Holding Corp. was a developer of the residential development known as The View of Black Mountain Community, a 262-unit duplex townhouse planned development in Clark County.  Real party in interest View of Black Mountain Homeowners' Association, Inc. (Black Mountain) is a common-interest community created pursuant to NRS Chapter 116 and is the governing body of The View of Black Mountain Community.  On behalf of its homeowners, Black Mountain commenced an action against Beazer, the American Black Mountain Limited Partnership, Townhouse Vista, Inc., and Amblamo, LLC, alleging breach of implied and expressed warranties and negligence.  In light of the Supreme Court's decision in D.R. Horton v. Dist. Ct. (First Light II), 125 Nev. 449, 215 P.3d 697 (2009), Black Mountain filed a motion to determine whether its claims on behalf of its members meet the criteria of NRCP 23 analysis.  After a hearing, the district court ordered that Black Mountain may represent its members in the underlying litigation and concluding NRS 116.3102(1)(d) applied and Black Mountain need not satisfy the prerequisites of NRCP 23.  The district court also concluded that First Light II is factually distinguishable because the construction defects Black Mountain is seeking to litigate are located on or in the exterior walls, wall openings and the roofs of the structures.  Beazer filed this petition challenging the district court's decision.  ISSUES:  (1) Is writ relief appropriate?  (2) Did Black Mountain waive its arguments regarding the applicability and constitutionality of D.R. Horton v. Dist. Ct. (First Light II), 125 Nev. 449, 215 P.3d 697 (2009)?  (3) Was this court's decision in First Light II in error?  (4) Did the district court exceed its jurisdiction in concluding that Black Mountain did not need to satisfy NRCP 23 in order to maintain its claims on behalf of its members?  (5) Do Black Mountain's claims satisfy NRCP 23's prerequisites as required by First Light II?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court's case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)

Progressive Gulf Insurance Co. vs. Faehnrich (NRAP 5),

Docket No. 57324

Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court

This case involves a certified question from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking whether Nevada's public policy precludes giving effect to a choice-of-law provision in an insurance contract where doing so would deny any recovery under NRS 485.3091.  The Randall and Toni Faehnrich lived in Mississippi with their two minor children. Their auto insurance policy included a Mississippi choice-of-law provision.  The policy also explicitly excluded "bodily injury to you or a relative," although in the event an accident occurred outside of Mississippi, the insurance would pay for the minimum coverage required by the state where the accident occurred. The Faehnriches divorced, and Toni Faehnrich moved to Las Vegas, taking a Jeep insured on the Mississippi policy with her.  Soon thereafter, Toni Faehnrich lost control of the Jeep while driving on a Las Vegas freeway.  The vehicle rolled several times and the Faehnriches' minor children were seriously injured.  Randall Faehnrich presented a claim to the insurance company on behalf of his sons, but the insurance company denied the claim pursuant to the family member exclusion.  This insurance company filed for declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, eventually appealing to the Ninth Circuit.  That court applied Nevada's conflict of law rules, but, unsure about Nevada's public policy, certified this question to Nevada's Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Does Nevada's public policy preclude giving effect to a choice-of-law provision in an insurance contract that was obtained while the parties resided outside Nevada, when that effect would deny any recovery under NRS 485.3091 to now-Nevada residents who were injured in Nevada?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court's case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)