The Nevada Supreme Court ruled on consolidated appeals involving the State of Nevada Commissioner of Insurance as receiver of Lewis and Clark LTC Risk Retention Group, Inc., in a case that addresses key issues in insurance receivership law. The court issued its opinion on December 23, 2025, in cases numbered 85668 and 85728.
The consolidated appeals stem from disputes between the Insurance Commissioner, acting as receiver for the failed long-term care insurance company, and eight former directors of the company: Robert Chur, Steve Fogg, Mark Garber, Carol Harter, Robert Hurlbut, Barbara Lumpkin, Jeff Marshall, and Eric Stickels.
The case originated in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, where Judge Nancy L. Allf presided over the proceedings. The appeals involve both a final district court judgment in a tort action following receivership and a post-judgment district court order denying attorney fees and costs.
In case No. 85668, the State Insurance Commissioner appealed the district court's judgment, while in case No. 85728, the eight former directors appealed the court's denial of their request for attorney fees and costs. The Nevada Supreme Court consolidated these appeals to address related legal questions arising from the receivership proceedings.
Lewis and Clark LTC Risk Retention Group was a long-term care insurance company that ultimately failed, leading to the Insurance Commissioner being appointed as receiver to oversee the company's affairs and protect policyholders. Risk retention groups are specialized insurance entities that provide coverage for specific types of liability risks, in this case long-term care services.
The receivership process involves the state taking control of an insolvent insurance company to manage its assets, pay claims where possible, and wind down operations in an orderly manner. During this process, disputes can arise between the receiver and various stakeholders, including former company directors and officers.
The specific nature of the tort claims and the disputes that led to these appeals centers on the actions and responsibilities of the former directors in relation to the company's operations prior to and during the receivership. The case involves complex questions about the scope of the receiver's authority and the rights of former company officials.
The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling resulted in a mixed outcome, with the court reversing the lower court's decision in part, vacating portions of the ruling, and remanding the case back to the district court for further proceedings. This type of disposition typically indicates that while the high court found errors in some aspects of the lower court's analysis, additional factual or legal determinations need to be made.
Representing the State Insurance Commissioner were attorneys from Wirthlin & Verlaine, specifically Brenoch R. Wirthlin of Las Vegas, along with counsel from Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC, including Robert E. Werbicky, also of Las Vegas.
The eight former directors were represented by the Garin Law Group, with attorneys Angela N. Ochoa and Joseph P. Garin of Las Vegas handling their case.
The case has implications for insurance receivership law in Nevada, particularly regarding the relationship between insurance receivers and former company officials. The ruling may establish precedent for how similar disputes are handled in future insurance company failures.
Long-term care insurance has been a particularly challenging sector in recent years, with several companies experiencing financial difficulties due to factors including longer life expectancies, increased care costs, and inadequate premium pricing in earlier years. When these companies fail, the receivership process becomes crucial for protecting policyholders and managing the orderly wind-down of operations.
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision to reverse in part and remand suggests that the lower court's analysis contained both correct and incorrect elements, requiring further consideration of specific issues. The partial vacation of the lower court's ruling indicates that certain aspects of the decision cannot stand as written.
This case represents the ongoing challenges in insurance regulation and the complex legal issues that arise when insurance companies fail. The receivership process is designed to protect consumers and creditors, but it often involves difficult questions about the responsibilities and liabilities of former company officials.
The remand to the district court means that further proceedings will be necessary to resolve the outstanding issues between the parties. The specific terms of the remand and the Supreme Court's guidance on how the lower court should proceed will be detailed in the full opinion when it becomes available.
For policyholders of Lewis and Clark LTC Risk Retention Group, the receivership proceedings represent an important mechanism for addressing their claims and protecting their interests following the company's failure. The resolution of disputes between the receiver and former directors is part of the broader process of managing the failed company's affairs.