Opinion ID: 2610930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the provision expressed in clear language?

Text: In Neumann, we held that anti-stacking provisions must be written in clear language. This court went on to explain that in order to be clear the clause should be neither ambiguous nor difficult to understand. Id. at 210, 699 P.2d at 104. Because the anti-stacking provision at issue in Neumann was confusing and difficult for a layman to comprehend, the clause was found to be invalid. Id. This court again addressed the clarity requirement of NRS 687B.145(1) in Torres v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 106 Nev. ___, 793 P.2d 839 (1990). In Torres, we held that anti-stacking language must be truly comprehensible to the average insured. Id. at ___, 793 P.2d at 843 (emphasis in original). The Torres court then concluded that the provision under consideration was not comprehensible in this manner and was therefore void under the statute. Id. This court offered several reasons in support of its Torres decision. First, the clause failed to specify that the total UM coverage was limited to the highest coverage on any single vehicle. Id. Second, the provision did not specify that the limitation applied regardless of the number of separate UM premiums paid, or the number of vehicles covered. Id. at ___, 793 P.2d at 844. Third, the anti-stacking clause failed to state clearly that the limitation applied to insurance issued by Farmers, as well as other insurers. Id. Finally, the limitation did not expressly state that the restriction applied regardless of whether insureds' vehicles were covered under single, multi-car, or separate policies. Id. Our decisions in Neumann and Torres reveal that the anti-stacking clause in Dominick's policy is sufficiently clear to pass muster under NRS 687B.145(1). The terms of the provision are written in clear, concise English, using simple terms such as car instead of vehicle, and avoiding legal jargon such as party in the first part, etc. Also, the provision is organized in a readable manner, with each of its different requirements broken into distinct sections. Moreover, the clause contains none of the defects enumerated in Torres  it specifically states: (1) that Prudential will not pay more than the UM coverage for the particular car; (2) that the limitation applies regardless of the number of vehicles covered or number of policies purchased; and (3) that the limitation applies to this policy. In short, it would be hard to express a difficult concept such as stacking any more clearly than was done by this provision.