How Do I Dispute a Fault Decision on a Car Accident?

(Nevada-focused guide to challenging an insurance “fault” call, police conclusions, and blame shifting)

If an insurance company (or anyone else) has decided you were “at fault” for a Nevada car accident, that decision is not necessarily the final word. In Nevada, legal fault is ultimately determined under negligence principles and Nevada’s modified comparative negligence statute, and it is decided by the trier of fact (judge, jury, or arbitrator) based on admissible evidence, not simply on an adjuster’s initial liability assessment or a police report’s conclusions (NRS 41.141; Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984); Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).

Below is a practical, Nevada-specific roadmap to disputing a fault decision the right way.

Why “fault” decisions are often wrong (and why disputing them matters in Nevada)

In Nevada, fault controls:

• Whether you can recover at all (you generally cannot recover if you are found more than 50% at fault).
• How much you can recover (your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault).

That is Nevada’s modified comparative negligence framework (NRS 41.141; Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984)).

Insurance carriers frequently assign fault quickly based on limited information, and then “lock in” a narrative that benefits their financial exposure. If you do not push back early with organized evidence, the adjuster’s version can harden into a negotiation anchor that is difficult to unwind later.

Step 1: Identify what “fault decision” you are actually disputing

People use “fault decision” to mean different things. The right strategy depends on which one you are dealing with:

1. Insurance company liability determination (the most common scenario).
2. Police report narrative or officer’s stated conclusion about who caused the crash.
3. Traffic citation outcome (ticket, plea, or bail forfeiture).
4. Your own insurer’s fault decision for collision coverage, subrogation, or premium purposes.

You can challenge all of these, but you do it differently.

Step 2: Understand what Nevada law says about who decides fault

A key Nevada principle that helps you dispute “fault” is this:

• It is the trier of fact’s job to determine what caused the collision and who is responsible, not the investigating officer’s conclusions in a report. In Frias, the Nevada Supreme Court held it was error to admit a traffic accident report that contained third-party statements, the officer’s conclusions as to cause, and references to a citation, emphasizing that deciding who caused the crash is the trier of fact’s function (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).

That does not mean police involvement is irrelevant, it means you should not treat an officer’s conclusion (or an adjuster’s conclusion) as unchangeable “truth.”

Step 3: Gather the “fault” evidence Nevada insurers and courts actually respond to

A. Get the crash report, but do not assume it is automatically admissible proof

In Nevada, police crash reports and their contents are not privileged or confidential (NRS 484E.110(2)). That makes them obtainable and usable for investigation, but admissibility in a civil case is a different question.

Importantly, Nevada appellate law is clear that certain portions of police accident reports can be problematic, especially when they include hearsay statements and fault conclusions (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).

Action steps:

• Obtain the police report and all supplements.
• Compare the report against photos, vehicle damage, roadway layout, and witness accounts.
• Identify inaccuracies and unsupported assumptions.

B. Do not rely on the SR-1 driver report as “evidence” in a civil trial

If the crash was not investigated at the scene, a driver/owner may have to submit a written/electronic report to the DMV (often known as an SR-1). Nevada law generally prevents that report from being used as evidence at trial in a civil or criminal case arising out of the crash (with limited exceptions) (NRS 484E.070(7)).

That matters because insurers sometimes reference DMV reporting issues to imply fault. The SR-1 is not your best battlefield for proving liability.

C. Understand how Nevada treats tickets, pleas, and bail forfeitures

A lot of people think “they got the ticket, so they’re at fault.” Nevada law is more nuanced.

• Nevada law recognizes problems with using a citation alone to prove civil fault. In Frias, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that evidence of the traffic citation was inadmissible in the civil action (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).
• Nevada has also held that forfeiture of bail on a traffic citation is not admissible as an admission of the charged traffic offense, and where it is relevant only to show a citation was received, it is inadmissible (Mendez v. Brinkerhoff, 105 Nev. 157, 771 P.2d 163 (1989); Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).
• Nevada has addressed attempts to use traffic dispositions as conclusive proof of liability and rejected overbroad approaches, including in the context of misdemeanor traffic offenses (Langon v. Matamoros, 121 Nev. 142, 111 P.3d 1077 (2005)).

Practical takeaway: you win fault disputes with admissible, credible facts, not with “the other driver got a ticket.”

D. Preserve and secure hard evidence fast (Nevada spoliation law is real)

If a fault dispute is serious, evidence preservation becomes a legal issue, not just a practical one. Nevada courts can impose sanctions for spoliation, including severe sanctions in appropriate cases (Stubli v. Big D Int’l Trucks, Inc., 107 Nev. 309, 810 P.2d 785 (1991)). Nevada also recognizes evidentiary consequences for lost or destroyed evidence, including instructions and presumptions depending on the circumstances (Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006); NRS 47.250(3)). Nevada has reiterated standards for spoliation analysis and sanctions in more recent decisions (MDB Trucking, LLC v. Versa Prods. Co., Inc., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 72, 475 P.3d 397 (2020)).

Action steps:

• Preserve dashcam video, Ring footage, and surveillance immediately.
• Send preservation requests for nearby businesses’ cameras.
• Keep the vehicles available for inspection if there is a major liability dispute.
• Save phone records only if they help you (and talk to counsel before making broad disclosures).

Step 4: Dispute the fault decision with a “liability packet,” not a phone argument

Insurance companies move when you give them a clean, organized, evidence-supported alternative story that creates real risk for them.

A strong Nevada liability dispute packet usually includes:

1. A short liability position letter explaining why their fault allocation is unsupported.
2. A timeline with timestamps (911 call, dispatch, tow, ER intake, etc.).
3. Scene evidence (photos, measurements, intersection geometry, signage, skid marks).
4. Vehicle damage analysis (impact points, direction of travel).
5. Witness statements (written, dated, with contact info).
6. Video evidence (dashcam or surveillance) with a short explanation of what it shows.
7. A diagram of the collision (simple, accurate).

Keep it factual. Avoid emotional language. Your goal is to make it easy for a supervisor or litigation counsel to see why the adjuster’s allocation will not hold up under Nevada’s comparative negligence framework (NRS 41.141; Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984)).

Step 5: Address police report issues the right way

You usually cannot force an officer to rewrite a report just because you disagree. But you can still reduce the report’s influence:

• Submit a supplemental statement to the investigating agency if permitted.
• Provide objective corrections (locations, lane counts, sequence of impacts).
• If the report contains conclusions not supported by personal observation, remember Nevada law’s emphasis that fault is for the trier of fact, and officer conclusions based on third-party statements and cursory inspection are not automatically admissible (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).

Step 6: Escalate strategically if the insurer refuses to change its fault call

If you have strong evidence and the insurer will not budge, your escalation options usually fall into these buckets:

A. File your own claim (when appropriate)

Depending on your coverages, you might be able to pursue benefits even while fault is disputed, such as medical payments coverage or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. If an insurer unreasonably handles its obligations to its insured, Nevada recognizes bad-faith principles in the insurance context (Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 109 Nev. 789, 858 P.2d 380 (1993)).

B. Understand limits on suing the other driver’s insurer directly

Nevada law generally does not give a third-party claimant a private right of action against the tortfeasor’s insurer under the unfair claims practices statute (Gunny v. Allstate Ins. Co., 108 Nev. 344, 830 P.2d 1335 (1992); NRS 686A.310).

That is why, in many disputed-fault cases, the real leverage comes from pursuing the at-fault driver directly and developing the evidence that will be used in court.

C. File a lawsuit to put fault in front of the proper decision-maker

When liability is truly contested, filing suit often forces the evidence to be evaluated under rules of procedure and evidence, rather than an adjuster’s internal guidelines.

Be mindful that Nevada has a two-year statute of limitations for many negligence-based personal injury claims (including many car accident claims) (NRS 11.190(4)(e)). Missing that deadline can end the case, regardless of how unfair the fault decision was.

Common mistakes that hurt fault disputes in Nevada

1. Giving a recorded statement too early, before you know the medical and factual picture.
2. Admitting fault casually (“I’m sorry,” “I didn’t see you,” “I might have been speeding”).
3. Waiting too long to preserve video (many systems overwrite quickly).
4. Assuming the police report “decides” the case, despite Nevada law emphasizing the trier of fact’s role (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).
5. Letting a ticket dominate the narrative, even though citation-related evidence is limited in civil fault proof (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985); Mendez v. Brinkerhoff, 105 Nev. 157, 771 P.2d 163 (1989); Langon v. Matamoros, 121 Nev. 142, 111 P.3d 1077 (2005)).

Frequently asked questions

Does the police report decide who is at fault in Nevada?

No. The police report can influence insurers and negotiations, but Nevada law recognizes that fault is for the trier of fact, and officer conclusions in reports can be inadmissible, especially when based on third-party statements and cursory inspection (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985)).

If the other driver got the ticket, do I automatically win?

Not automatically. Nevada case law limits using citation-related evidence as a shortcut to proving fault (Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985); Mendez v. Brinkerhoff, 105 Nev. 157, 771 P.2d 163 (1989); Langon v. Matamoros, 121 Nev. 142, 111 P.3d 1077 (2005)).

What if the insurer says I’m 51% at fault?

That matters because Nevada’s modified comparative negligence statute generally bars recovery if you are more than 50% at fault (NRS 41.141; Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984)). A 51% assertion is often strategic. It should be challenged with evidence.

Nevada legal authorities cited

• NRS 11.190(4)(e)
• NRS 41.141
• NRS 47.250(3)
• NRS 484E.070(7)
• NRS 484E.110(2)
• NRS 686A.310
• Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984).
• Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012).
• Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985).
• Mendez v. Brinkerhoff, 105 Nev. 157, 771 P.2d 163 (1989).
• Langon v. Matamoros, 121 Nev. 142, 111 P.3d 1077 (2005).
• Stubli v. Big D Int’l Trucks, Inc., 107 Nev. 309, 810 P.2d 785 (1991).
• Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006).
• MDB Trucking, LLC v. Versa Prods. Co., Inc., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 72, 475 P.3d 397 (2020).
• Gunny v. Allstate Ins. Co., 108 Nev. 344, 830 P.2d 1335 (1992).
• Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 109 Nev. 789, 858 P.2d 380 (1993).

If you need assistance with your personal injury case, don’t hesitate to contact Friedman Injury Law.

Friedman Injury Law
375 N. Stephanie St., Ste. 1411
Henderson, NV 89014
P: (702) 970-4222
W: blakefriedmanlaw.com

Sharing is caring: