Quick Answer
If the at-fault person only has minimum insurance limits, your case value may be limited by available coverage, but you still have options. Nevada’s minimum liability insurance requirement is generally $25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident for bodily injury, plus $20,000 property damage (NRS 485.185). If your damages exceed those limits, you may pursue:
- the at-fault driver’s policy limits,
- Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage on your own policy if you have it (NRS 687B.145),
- additional liable parties and additional insurance policies, and
- litigation tools to prove damages and apportion fault correctly (NRS 41.141; Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012)).
1) Understand what “minimum limits” really means in Nevada
Nevada requires drivers to maintain minimum liability insurance (NRS 485.185). In many serious injury cases, those minimum limits are not enough to cover:
- emergency transport and imaging,
- surgery and rehabilitation,
- long-term care,
- lost wages and future earning loss,
- pain and suffering.
Practical takeaway: Minimum limits can create a “coverage ceiling” even when damages are far higher.
2) Step one, confirm the available liability coverage and demand the limits when appropriate
When injuries are serious and liability is clear, the claim often starts with a policy limits demand.
If a lawsuit is filed, Nevada’s civil procedure rules require early disclosures and discovery that can include insurance information in the litigation process (NRCP 16.1). This is one reason filing suit sometimes changes settlement posture, it forces clarity on coverage and evidence.
3) Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage is often the difference-maker
A) Nevada’s UM/UIM statute
Nevada’s UM/UIM statute governs underinsured motorist coverage (NRS 687B.145). UIM coverage generally applies when the at-fault driver has liability coverage, but the coverage is insufficient compared to the damages.
B) UIM is usually a first-party claim
Like UM, UIM claims are typically made against your own insurer, so Nevada’s first-party claim handling duties and bad faith law can matter if the insurer unreasonably delays or denies a valid claim, depending on the facts (Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 109 Nev. 789, 858 P.2d 380 (1993); Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Potter, 112 Nev. 199, 912 P.2d 267 (1996); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300, 212 P.3d 318 (2009)).
Nevada also regulates unfair claims practices (NRS 686A.310).
C) Documentation matters because you must prove the gap
UIM is not automatic. You must show:
- the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient, and
- your damages exceed those limits.
That requires strong medical causation and damages proof. In Nevada, medical causation often requires expert medical testimony when the issue is outside common knowledge (Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005)).
4) A minimum-limits case becomes a “who else is liable” investigation
When the obvious defendant has minimal coverage, the case often turns into identifying additional responsible parties.
A) Employer liability and business-use vehicles
If the at-fault driver was working, the employer may be liable under respondeat superior principles in appropriate circumstances (Molino v. Asher, 96 Nev. 814, 618 P.2d 878 (1980); Nat’l Convenience Stores v. Fantauzzi, 94 Nev. 655, 584 P.2d 689 (1978)).
B) Negligent hiring, supervision, training, entrustment
Direct negligence theories can apply where supported by evidence, especially if a business put an unsafe driver on the road (Burnett v. C.B.A. Sec. Serv., 107 Nev. 787, 820 P.2d 750 (1991); Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 112 Nev. 1217, 925 P.2d 1175 (1996)).
C) Multi-vehicle collisions and apportionment
In multi-car crashes, additional drivers may share fault. Nevada comparative negligence and apportionment rules often determine the recovery structure (NRS 41.141; Café Moda, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012); Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 788, 312 P.3d 484 (2013)).
5) Comparative negligence is a major settlement lever in minimum-limits cases
Nevada uses modified comparative negligence (NRS 41.141). That affects settlement value because:
- If the injured person is found more negligent than the defendant(s), recovery is barred (NRS 41.141(1)).
- If the injured person is 50% or less at fault, recovery is reduced proportionally (NRS 41.141(2)).
Minimum-limits insurers often push comparative negligence arguments to reduce the effective value and avoid paying limits, so evidence preservation and careful statement strategy matter.
6) Even when coverage is low, damages still matter, because they drive UIM and other recovery paths
A) Economic damages
Medical bills, wage loss, and future expenses must be documented and supported.
B) Non-economic damages
Nevada recognizes that pain and suffering and similar harms are typically questions for the factfinder and are not fixed by a strict multiplier (Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984); Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952)).
C) Collateral sources
Using health insurance does not necessarily reduce the tort value against the negligent party under Nevada collateral source principles (Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996)).
7) Settlement mechanics still matter, because settlement is a contract
Even in a limits case, settlement terms must be clear and enforceable. Nevada treats settlements as contracts, and essential terms such as release terms can be material (May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 119 P.3d 1254 (2005)).
8) Deadlines, protect the statute of limitations while investigating coverage
Most Nevada personal injury lawsuits must be filed within two years (NRS 11.190(4)(e)). Even if you are negotiating a policy-limits resolution, protect the deadline.
Nevada legal authorities cited
- NRS 11.190(4)(e).
- NRS 41.141.
- NRS 485.185.
- NRS 686A.310.
- NRS 687B.145.
- NRCP 16.1.
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300, 212 P.3d 318 (2009).
- Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952).
- Burnett v. C.B.A. Sec. Serv., 107 Nev. 787, 820 P.2d 750 (1991).
- Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012).
- Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Potter, 112 Nev. 199, 912 P.2d 267 (1996).
- Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 788, 312 P.3d 484 (2013).
- May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 119 P.3d 1254 (2005).
- Molino v. Asher, 96 Nev. 814, 618 P.2d 878 (1980).
- Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
- Nat’l Convenience Stores v. Fantauzzi, 94 Nev. 655, 584 P.2d 689 (1978).
- Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 109 Nev. 789, 858 P.2d 380 (1993).
- Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996).
- Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 112 Nev. 1217, 925 P.2d 1175 (1996).
- Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984).
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