Nevada’s Changing Liability Insurance Landscape—State Insurance Regulator Issues Emergency Regulation and Guidance Addressing Controversial “Defense-Within-Limits” Legislation
Time 3 Minute Read

We recently posted about Nevada becoming the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what is called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. 

In response to uncertainty and industry concern about the potential effects the new law may have on the state’s insurance marketplace, Nevada’s Division of Insurance issued an Emergency Regulation and Guidance to Insurers on the new law to minimize disruption to the marketplace. After noting that the new law “has the potential to eliminate or greatly reduce the availability of certain policies of liability insurance and significantly increase their costs, which will affect all types of Nevada businesses, non-profit entities, and state and local governments,” Nevada’s Division of Insurance addressed three issues relating to the new law in the Emergency Regulation:

  1. The meaning of the term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the new law.
  2. The insurers to which the new law does not apply.
  3. How defense coverage is required to be made available.

A letter from the Insurance Commissioner to the Governor accompanying the Emergency Regulation, and a separate Guidance to Insurers document which was issued by Nevada’s Division of Insurance, provided clarification on each of these issues.

Policy of Liability Insurance. With respect to the new law’s use of the term “policy of liability insurance,” “liability insurance” is “a form of casualty insurance, defined in NRS 681A.020(1)(b) as insurance against legal liability for the death, injury or disability of any human being or for damage to property, including liability resulting from negligence in rendering expert, fiduciary or professional services.” The term liability insurance, therefore, encompasses many policies that commonly include defense-within-limits provisions.

Scope of Legislation. Regarding the scope of the new law, it does not apply to risk-retention groups and “captive insurance that does not cover third-party liability.” However, the Insurance Commissioner’s letter acknowledges that the new law is expected to impact a broad range of liability policies, including “Medical Malpractice; Errors and Omissions and other professional liability policies; Directors and Officers; Cyber Liability; Employment Practices Liability; Pollution and Environmental Impairment; Fiduciary Liability; Construction Defect; Products and Clinical Trial Liability; and Excess and Umbrella policies.” 

Defense Coverage. On the final issue of required defense coverage, the guidance document reiterates that “a policy of liability insurance must now include defense costs outside of the limits of liability and defense coverage must be available.” But it goes on to clarify that the law “does not require unlimited defense costs.” Policies may provide for a separate limit for defense costs, including a limit of $0. Policies may also include self-insured retention or deductibles on liability coverage or defense costs.

The Emergency Regulation is effective for 120 days from its effective date of July 21, 2023, and it cannot be renewed. Unless modified or rescinded, the Emergency Regulation should remain in effect past October 1, 2023, when Nevada’s new law goes into effect.

This is an evolving area of law that the entire insurance industry, but especially Nevada policyholders and insurers doing business in the state, are sure to monitor.

  • Partner

    Geoff works closely with corporate policyholders and their directors and officers to resolve high-stakes insurance disputes. He leads the firm’s directors and officers (D&O) insurance and executive protection practice.

    As a ...

  • Associate

    A former judicial law clerk with experience in federal and state courts, Andrew helps policyholders maximize their insurance recoveries in complex insurance disputes. He also helps clients with civil litigation matters and ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Colleges and universities have long sat at the crossroads of freedom of expression and societal change. As campus activism surges, they face growing pressure to protect their institutional missions while upholding students’ individual rights in an era of heightened scrutiny.

Time 4 Minute Read

In a recent opinion addressing cross‑motions for summary judgment, a Pennsylvania state court set forth a clear holding that policyholders may recover post-judgment interest under excess liability insurance policies only when the policy language expressly says so—and only when the stated conditions are met. The decision underscores the importance for policyholders to thoroughly examine the defense and payment provisions outlined in their insurance policies.

Time 1 Minute Read

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

Time 5 Minute Read

Directors and officers liability insurance is first and foremost protection against personal exposure of boards and management who are targeted in claims challenging their decisions in running the company. That’s why it is surprising how often dedicated “Side A” coverage—insurance coverage, subject to no self-insured retention, available exclusively for the benefit of directors and officers who are not indemnified by the company—is overlooked in placing and renewing D&O insurance programs. One recent Texas bankruptcy ruling, In re First Brands Group, LLC, No. 25-90399 (CML) (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2026), demonstrates just how powerful Side A protection can be. There, against strong objections from the creditors’ committee, the bankruptcy court granted motions by numerous former executives seeking relief from the automatic stay to recover D&O insurance proceeds, unlocking millions in Side A coverage to defend against private and governmental claims asserted in connection with the bankruptcy.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page