Nautilus Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee,
Access Medical, LLC; Robert Clark Wood II; Flournoy Management, LLC, Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants.
Appellant/Cross-Appellee Nautilus Insurance Company: Linda
Wendell Hsu Selman Breitman LLP.
Appellees/Cross-Appellants Access Medical LLC and Robert
Clark Wood II: Jordan P. Schnitzer The Schnitzer Law Firm, L.
Renee Green Kravitz Schnitzer & Johnson, Chtd.
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Flournoy Management LLC:
James E. Harper, Harper Selim.
Before: Ronald M. Gould, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Ryan D. Nelson,
CERTIFYING QUESTION TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT
Question to Nevada Supreme Court
panel certified the following question of state law to the
Nevada Supreme Court:
Is an insurer entitled to reimbursement of costs already
expended in defense of its insureds where a determination has
been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and the
insurer expressly reserved its right to seek reimbursement in
writing after defense has been tendered but where the
insurance policy contains no reservation of rights?
M. GOULD, CIRCUIT JUDGE
to Rule 5 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, we
respectfully certify to the Nevada Supreme Court the question
of law set forth in Section III of this order. This question
of law will be determinative of a question pending before
this court and there is no controlling precedent in the
decisions of the Nevada state courts.
summarize the material facts. After a business partnership
went sour, Ted Switzer filed a cross-complaint against Access
Medical, Flournoy, and Robert Clark Wood II (collectively
"Insureds") in California state court. In the
cross-complaint, Switzer brought thirty-one claims, including
a purported claim for interference with prospective economic
advantage because of the Insureds' alleged interference
with relationships with hospitals with which Switzer
"enjoyed a long-standing and mutually beneficial
relationship." Specifically, Switzer alleged that: (1)
Insureds "acted to disrupt the relationship between
Switzer" and various hospitals; (2) the wrongful acts
"resulted in injury to the personal and business
reputation" of Switzer; (3) the wrongful acts caused
various vendors to stop using Switzer's business and to
use Access Medical's instead; and (4) the wrongful acts
were malicious and done with the intent to injure
Switzer's professional and business well-being. Although
never referenced in the cross-complaint, at some point an
email written by Jacqueline Weide, a representative of Access
Medical and Flournoy, was uncovered. In the ...