NRS689A.180. Optional provisions.

  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 689A.040, no such policy delivered or issued for delivery to any person in this State may contain provisions respecting the matters set forth in NRS 689A.190 to 689A.270, inclusive, unless the provisions are in the words in which the provisions appear in the applicable section, except that the insurer may, at its option, use in lieu of any such provision a corresponding provision of different wording approved by the Commissioner which is not less favorable in any respect to the insured or the beneficiary. Any such provision contained in the policy must be preceded individually by the appropriate caption or, at the option of the insurer, by such appropriate individual or group captions or subcaptions as the Commissioner may approve.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 1758; A 1985, 1060; 2005, 2343)

Note

An insurer refused to pay a beneficiary death benefits under a policy of insurance when the insured died from an accidental overdose of medication prescribed by her physician on the ground that the policy contained a provision denying coverage for any loss resulting from the influence of drugs unless “taken as prescribed by a physician.” However, former NRS 689A.280 authorizes an insurer to deny coverage on that ground unless the narcotic is “administered on the advice of a physician.” Additionally, NRS 689A.180 allows the use of language that is different from that contained in former NRS 689A.280 if it is not less favorable to the insured or the beneficiary. The court concluded that “taken as prescribed by a physician” was a stricter standard than “administered on the advice of a physician” and was, therefore, less advantageous to the insured and the beneficiary. As a result of that finding, the court amended the language contained in former NRS 689A.280 into the policy pursuant to NRS 689A.340, which provides that, if the language in a policy conflicts with any provision of NRS ch. 689A, the provisions of the chapter apply, and determined that under the statutory language, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the benefits provided under the policy. Hummel v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co., 254 F.Supp.2d 1183 (D. Nev. 2003)