Nevada doesn’t set a fixed dollar amount for post-accident premium increases—but Nevada law strictly limits when insurers can raise rates. Here’s what the statutes, regulations, and Nevada Supreme Court cases say.
Quick answer
There is no single “Nevada amount” your premium must increase after an accident. The increase depends on your insurer’s filed rating plan, your driving history, the severity of the accident, and—most importantly—whether the accident is “chargeable” and whether you were at fault.
But Nevada law is unusually specific about what insurers cannot do:
- They generally cannot increase renewal premiums because of a claim where you were not at fault. (NRS 687B.385(1)).
- They generally cannot increase renewal premiums because of a claim where they paid nothing, or they recovered the entire payment through salvage/subrogation/another mechanism. (NRS 687B.385(2)).
- They generally cannot raise renewal premiums because you made a coverage inquiry about an actual/potential claim or hypothetical coverage question. (NRS 687B.385(3)).
- Nevada regulations restrict when an accident can be treated as “chargeable” for liability premium increases upon renewal. (NAC 687B.850).
Why premiums go up after an accident (in general)
Insurers price risk using rating factors. After an accident, carriers may apply:
- an accident surcharge (if the accident is “chargeable”)
- changes in tier/discount eligibility
- broader rating impacts based on loss history
Nevada law doesn’t ban all accident-related pricing—it bans certain actions in specific circumstances, and it requires insurers to define “chargeable accident” in a regulated way.
The Nevada statutes you should know
1) The “not-at-fault claim” protection
Nevada prohibits an insurer from refusing to issue, canceling, refusing to renew, or increasing the premium for renewal of a motor vehicle policy “as a result of” claims where the insured was not at fault. (NRS 687B.385(1)).
Key point: This is a powerful statutory protection when the accident truly wasn’t your fault.
2) The “no payment / full recovery” protection
Even if you made a claim, the insurer generally cannot raise renewal premiums if:
- the insurer made no payment, or
- the insurer recovered the entirety of its payment through salvage, subrogation, or another mechanism. (NRS 687B.385(2)).
Example: if your carrier paid for damage initially but was later reimbursed 100% by the at-fault party’s insurer through subrogation, this provision may matter.
3) The “inquiry only” protection
Nevada also prohibits renewal premium increases based on inquiries regarding:
- whether coverage exists for a matter, or
- any hypothetical/informational insurance question. (NRS 687B.385(3)).
Plain-English takeaway: calling your insurer to ask “Am I covered if…?” is not supposed to become a backdoor reason to hike your renewal premium.
The key Nevada regulation: “chargeable accident” restrictions
Nevada’s administrative code provides additional rules for “chargeable accidents” in motor vehicle insurance:
- Insurers may not increase the premium charge for liability coverage upon renewal because of an accident that is not a chargeable accident. (NAC 687B.850(1)).
- Each insurer must file and use its definition of “chargeable accident,” and that definition may include only those accidents for which the insured is 50% or more at fault. (NAC 687B.850(2)).
- Rate filings must define “chargeable accident” in terms of a monetary amount of damage (a threshold concept). (NAC 687B.850(3)).
- Comprehensive claims cannot be defined as chargeable accidents for premium increases/cancellation, though a series of such claims may be used in limited ways regarding comprehensive coverage/deductibles. (NAC 687B.850(4)).
Practical takeaway: in Nevada, “chargeable accident” is not purely whatever the insurer says—it must meet regulatory constraints (fault threshold + monetary threshold + filing requirement).
Nevada Supreme Court case law that shaped “at fault” for premium surcharges
When insurers, regulators, and courts have fought about what “at fault” means for premium increases, the Nevada Supreme Court has repeatedly tied the concept back to Nevada tort principles and statutory interpretation.
1) State Farm I: “At fault” can be ambiguous, and comparative negligence matters
In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins., the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that “at fault” in NRS 687B.385 was “reasonably susceptible to varying interpretations,” and the Court analyzed the statute alongside Nevada’s comparative negligence law. (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Comm’r of Ins., 114 Nev. 535, 958 P.2d 733 (1998)).
The Court explained the doctrinal connection between resolving liability claims and Nevada’s comparative negligence statute, NRS 41.141, in understanding fault for insurance purposes. (Id.)
2) State Farm II: A regulation can’t conflict with the statute and NRS 41.141
In State, Div. of Insurance v. State Farm, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed a regulation attempting to limit chargeable accidents to those where the insured is more than 50% at fault. The Court affirmed summary judgment against enforcement of that regulation, concluding it conflicted with NRS 687B.385 and the comparative negligence framework in NRS 41.141. (State, Div. of Ins. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 Nev. 290, 995 P.2d 482 (2000)).
Why this matters for consumers: Nevada’s highest court has treated “fault” for premium-surcharge purposes as closely related to legally meaningful fault (not just an insurer’s informal label).
3) Reinkemeyer: NRS 687B.385 restricts insurer action but is not facially unconstitutional
In Reinkemeyer v. Safeco, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed certified questions involving NRS 687B.385, including its applicability (in an earlier statutory context) and constitutional challenges. The Court recognized that the statute restricts insurer actions in certain situations, while still allowing insurers to operate within the broader insurance code. (Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 117 Nev. 44, 16 P.3d 1069 (2001)).
Why it matters: Reinkemeyer is frequently cited when explaining that NRS 687B.385 is a real, enforceable consumer protection—not just a “policy preference.”
So… how much will your insurance go up in Nevada?
The honest Nevada-law answer
Your premium increase can range from $0 to a significant surcharge depending on:
- whether the accident is “chargeable” under your insurer’s filed definition (which must be tied to a dollar amount threshold) (NAC 687B.850(3))
- whether you were 50% or more at fault (NAC 687B.850(2))
- whether the claim falls under the protections in NRS 687B.385(1)–(3)
Nevada law does not publish a statewide surcharge table. Insurers file rates and rating plans, and the legal fight is usually about whether your accident can legally be treated as chargeable at all.
Common Nevada scenarios (and what the law suggests)
Scenario 1: You were clearly not at fault (rear-ended at a stoplight)
A renewal premium increase “as a result of” that claim is generally prohibited. (NRS 687B.385(1).) For liability premium upon renewal, the regulation also prohibits increases because of a non-chargeable accident. (NAC 687B.850(1)).
Action step: keep the police report, photos, and the other driver’s insurance information; those documents often prevent improper “fault creep” later.
Scenario 2: The insurer paid, but later recovered 100% through subrogation
Nevada law generally prohibits renewal premium increases when the insurer recovered the entirety of its payment through subrogation or another mechanism. (NRS 687B.385(2)).
Action step: ask whether the claim was subrogated and whether the insurer recovered its payment in full.
Scenario 3: You were 50/50 at fault
Nevada regulations allow a “chargeable accident” definition only for accidents where the insured is 50% or more at fault. (NAC 687B.850(2)). So a 50/50 accident can still be chargeable under the regulation.
Scenario 4: Minor accident below the insurer’s dollar threshold
Nevada requires insurers to define “chargeable accident” in terms of a monetary amount of damage in their rate filing. (NAC 687B.850(3).) If the payout/damage doesn’t meet the threshold, the accident may be non-chargeable—meaning a liability premium increase upon renewal for that accident should not happen. (NAC 687B.850(1)).
Scenario 5: Comprehensive-only claims (theft, hail, windshield—depending on coverage)
NAC 687B.850 restricts defining comprehensive claims as chargeable accidents for increasing premiums/canceling, while still allowing limited actions if there is a series of such claims. (NAC 687B.850(4)).
What to do if your Nevada insurer raises your rates after an accident
- Request a written explanation of the increase and ask whether it was due to a “chargeable accident.”
- Ask what fault percentage they assigned and what evidence they relied on.
- Ask for the insurer’s monetary threshold for a “chargeable accident” under its filed definition. (NAC 687B.850(2)–(3)).
- If you were not at fault, point the insurer to NRS 687B.385(1) and request reconsideration.
- If the insurer recovered all it paid, cite NRS 687B.385(2).
- If you only asked questions and didn’t make a claim, cite NRS 687B.385(3).
If the issue isn’t resolved, consumers can file a complaint with the Nevada Division of Insurance (do not include links in your blog; just mention the agency).
Nevada legal authorities cited
- NRS 687B.385 (renewal premium increase/cancellation/nonrenewal restrictions: not-at-fault claims; no payment/full recovery; inquiries)
- NAC 687B.850 (chargeable accidents: restrictions; filed definition; 50% or more at fault; monetary threshold; comprehensive restrictions)
- NRS 41.141 (comparative negligence—relevant to “fault” framework)
- NRS 679B.130 (limits on regulations conflicting with Nevada law—discussed in State Farm II)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Comm’r of Ins., 114 Nev. 535, 958 P.2d 733 (1998)
- State, Div. of Ins. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 Nev. 290, 995 P.2d 482 (2000)
- Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 117 Nev. 44, 16 P.3d 1069 (2001)
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Dog-bite injuries and auto insurance issues are fact-specific. If you have questions about your rights under Nevada law, consider speaking with a Nevada-licensed attorney.
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