The Las Vegas Sun reported that the Nevada Supreme Court denied a challenge to the civil enforcement of Nevada's indoor smoking ban.

The criminal enforcement of the smoking ban had already been held unconstitutional, and the statutory basis for criminal enforcement has been removed from the statute.

However, civil enforcement of the smoking ban is constitutional, despite the challenge from Las Vegas businesses. The businesses challenged the provisions under the equal protection clause, as the statute exempts gambling areas in large casinos, certain taverns, and certain strip clubs.

In rejecting the challenge, the Supreme Court reasoned that the exemptions did not violate equal protection because they are justified by the fact that "minors are prohibited from gambling areas in casinos, unlike in smaller bars and restaurants where slot machines are "incidental" to their overall business."

The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the scope of an insurer's duty to defend under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 28 (July 30, 2009).

The opinion considered when an insurer has a duty to inform its insured about settlement opportunities.

The Court held that an insurer's duty to defend includes a duty to "adequately inform the insured of settlement offers," including reasonable offers that exceed policy limits. An insured's failure to so inform its insured can be used as a factor in bad faith claims. The failure to inform can also serve as a proximate cause of damages to the insured.

See the entire opinion here

The Nevada Supreme Court clarified business defamation in Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Virtual Educ., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 31 (August 6, 2009).

The case presented the issues to the Court of whether "the absolute privilege applies to defamatory communications made by a nonlawyer in anticipation of a judicial proceeding," and "whether allegedly defamatory statements made about a business's product provide a basis for defamation per se or for business disparagement."

The Court concluded that in a business defamation action under Nevada law, "the absolute privilege affords parties to litigation the same protection from liability that exists for an attorney for defamatory statements made during, or in anticipation of, judicial proceedings."

Furthermore, "when allegedly defamatory statements concern a business's product and the plaintiff seeks to redress injury to economic interest, the claim is one for business disparagement, not defamation per se."

See the Court's opinion here.