Monday, June 28, 2021-Las Vegas-Full Court

THOMAS (MARLO) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)
Docket Number: 77345
Las Vegas - 2:30 P.M. - En Banc

Marlo Thomas was convicted of multiple felony offenses for robbing a restaurant and stabbing two employees to death. His convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal. He was granted a new penalty hearing in a postconviction proceeding but was again sentenced to death for each murder. Those sentences were affirmed on appeal and upheld after a postconviction challenge. This appeal follows the denial of Thomas’ third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

ISSUES:

The primary issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in concluding that the petition was procedurally barred.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

ZURICH AM. INS. CO. VS. IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INS. (NRAP 5)
Docket Number: 81428
Las Vegas - 3:00 P.M. - En Banc

This is an NRAP 5 certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arising from a dispute where respondent determined it had no duty to defend under an insurance policy. Appellants insured subcontractors that worked on many homes developed by several companies. After the work was completed, the subcontractors obtained a policy from respondent insuring the subcontractors for property damage that occurred during the policy period. Homeowners sued the developers of their homes, who in turn sued the subcontractors as third-party defendants. The subcontractors tendered a defense to appellants. Appellants sent tender letters to respondent requesting indemnification and defense, but respondent disclaimed coverage. Appellants settled the claims, then sued respondent for contribution and indemnification for the defense and settlement costs, as well as a declaration that respondent had owed a duty to defend the subcontractors against the underlying lawsuits. Two different federal district courts reached different conclusions regarding the policy, which led to the underlying appeal to the Ninth Circuit. To aid in its consideration of the case, the Ninth Circuit has certified two questions to this court.

ISSUES:

ISSUES: (1) Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? and (2) Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do