Understanding Nevada NRS 687B.110: Rules for Insurance Representations

Nevada NRS 687B.110 governs how insurers and insureds treat representations on life and health insurance applications. This statute addresses misrepresentations and omissions, the insurer’s burden to prove materiality and intent, and the limited circumstances under which a policy may be voided or rescinded for pre-existing condition non-disclosure.

This article explains the statute in practical terms, highlights risks for applicants who fail to disclose pre-existing conditions, compares key legal concepts, and gives step-by-step guidance for responding to a rescission or denial. This is informational only and not legal advice.

Table of Contents

What NRS 687B.110 says in plain language

The statute restricts an insurer’s ability to void coverage based on application answers unless certain elements are met.
Insurers must prove that a misrepresentation was material to the risk accepted or that the insured intended to deceive.
For many health and life policies, Nevada imposes a higher burden on insurers than some other states—protecting consumers from automatic voiding for innocent omissions.

For detailed discussion of how Nevada applies high standards to rescission, see The High Bar for Policy Rescission in Nevada Life Insurance.

Key elements insurers must show under NRS 687B.110

Materiality: The false statement or omission must be material—that is, it would have influenced the insurer’s acceptance, premium, or underwriting decision.
Knowledge/Intent: Nevada often requires proof that the insured knew the statement was untrue or intended to deceive, especially in health non-disclosures. See Nevada's Requirement for Proving Intent in Health Non-disclosures.
Timeliness: Whether the misrepresentation occurred at the time of application and is connected to the insurer’s decision.
Type of policy: Life and major medical policies may have differing standards and contestability provisions—review specific policy language in combination with NRS 687B.110. See Navigating Disclosure Obligations for Nevada Major Medical Policies.

Why pre-existing condition non-disclosure is risky

Failing to disclose prior diagnoses, treatments, or symptoms can lead to:

Policy rescission if the insurer proves material misrepresentation and (in some cases) intent.
Denial of specific claims tied to the undisclosed condition even if the policy remains in force. See When Nevada Insurers Cannot Deny Claims Based on Past Illnesses.
Coverage disputes and litigation, often governed by how Nevada treats omissions versus affirmative false statements. See Misstatements vs. Fraud: The Nevada Statutory Distinction.

Misstatement vs. Fraud — quick comparison

Element	Misstatement (innocent)	Fraud (knowing deception)
Intent required	Generally not required to prove intent for all outcomes	Intent or knowledge of falsity is required
Typical remedy	Correction, possible premium adjustment, limited rescission risk in NV	Rescission, voiding of claims, possible penalties
Nevada tendency	Courts scrutinize materiality; protect insureds from automatic rescission	Courts require strong proof of intent; see related guidance below

For deeper legal nuance, read Misstatements vs. Fraud: The Nevada Statutory Distinction.

The role of materiality in disputes

Materiality is the linchpin of most NRS 687B.110 challenges. Insurers must show that the undisclosed fact would have affected the insurer’s underwriting decision or premium rating.

Courts examine underwriting guidelines, medical records, and whether the insurer actually would have declined or charged more.
The concept is central to litigation; many Nevada cases turn on expert underwriting testimony and document evidence. See The Role of Materiality in Nevada NRS 687B.110 Legal Battles.

Examples: How NRS 687B.110 applies (hypotheticals)

Example 1: Applicant forgets to list a minor treated infection years earlier. If the infection was not material to underwriting, the insurer may not rescind.
Example 2: Applicant omits ongoing cancer treatment. This is likely material; insurer can pursue rescission if intent or materiality is proven.
Example 3: Applicant provides an ambiguous answer; court may examine whether the ambiguity misled an insurer and whether the insurer relied on it.

For statutory limits on rescission, consult Rescinding Coverage in NV: Statutory Limits on Insurance Companies.

What to do if your policy is rescinded or a claim is denied

Follow these practical steps quickly:

Gather documentation: application, medical records, all communications with the insurer.
Request a written explanation of the insurer’s basis for rescission or denial.
Ask the insurer to identify the specific statements it claims are false and why they are material.
Consider submitting an appeal or rebuttal with supporting records and physician statements.
If resolution fails, consult an attorney experienced in Nevada insurance law and NRS 687B.110 disputes.

See guidance on statutory protections and family impacts in NRS 687B.110: Protecting Nevada Families from Unfair Policy Voids.

Defenses commonly raised by insureds

Lack of intent to deceive—especially important under Nevada law where intent often matters.
Immateriality—arguing the undisclosed condition would not have affected underwriting.
Ambiguity in application questions—if questions were unclear, courts may favor insured.
Policy language or insurer conduct—failure to follow contestability rules or missteps in underwriting disclosures can limit insurer remedies.

For a focused discussion on omissions and benefit eligibility, see Nevada Law: How Omissions Affect Health Care Benefit Eligibility.

Best practices for applicants and agents (checklist)

Always answer application questions completely and accurately.
When uncertain, disclose the condition and add a brief explanation.
Keep copies of completed applications and medical authorizations.
If an agent fills out the application, review it carefully before signing.
When in doubt, obtain written clarification or attach a statement.

Quick comparison: Outcomes and likely consequences

Outcome	Likely Nevada result	Practical impact
Innocent omission of immaterial fact	Policy likely remains	Possible correction; claim paid
Material omission with proof of intent	Rescission/voiding possible	Loss of coverage; claim denied
Material omission without proof of intent	Courts may still require remedy but rescission harder	Dispute; insurer burden to prove materiality

Final takeaways

NRS 687B.110 protects Nevada consumers by imposing materiality and, in many cases, intent requirements before insurers can void coverage for non-disclosure.
Pre-existing condition non-disclosure carries real risks—especially when the condition is recent, ongoing, or directly affects underwriting decisions.
Act proactively by fully disclosing health history and keeping records. If you face a rescission or denial, document everything and consult a Nevada insurance attorney.

For more on limits insurers face when seeking rescission and how Nevada courts construe those limits, see Rescinding Coverage in NV: Statutory Limits on Insurance Companies and review The High Bar for Policy Rescission in Nevada Life Insurance.

If you need help evaluating a specific denial or rescission, consult a qualified Nevada insurance lawyer to review your facts and options.