ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY HALLMARK SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY CRUM FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY HDI GLOBAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND MAXUM INDEMNITY COMPANY v. BLOOMIN BRANDS INC (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for partial summary judgment in a dispute regarding coverage under a commercial insurance policy. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); NRS 34.160. Writ relief is purely discretionary for this court. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). A plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law generally precludes writ relief, NRS 34.170, and the right to appeal from a final judgment is generally an adequate legal remedy. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). This court has discretion to entertain a petition for advisory mandamus, however this requires special care “to avoid subverting the final judgment rule,” which has wise basis in ensuring an efficient justice system. Archon Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 816, 821, 823-24, 407 P.3d 702, 707, 709 (2017). Thus, writ relief is generally not an appropriate remedy when resolving the writ petition would not resolve the entire controversy. See Moore v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 96 Nev. 415, 416-17, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980).

Petitioners have not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. First, petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in the form of an appeal from a final judgment. NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Second, we generally decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying summary judgment or motions to dismiss. See Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. 283, 288, 535 P.3d 254, 259 (2023); Archon Corp., 133 Nev. at 824, 407 P.3d at 709 (explaining that “[a] request for mandamus following the denial of a motion to dismiss presents many of the inefficiencies that adherence to the final judgment rule seeks to prevent”). And petitioners have failed to demonstrate that an exception to the general rule should apply. See Starr Surplus Lines, 139 Nev. at 288, 535 P.3d at 259. (“An exception to this policy may apply ․ when a writ petition presents an ‘opportunity to clarify an important issue of law and doing so serves judicial economy.’ ” (quoting Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 106, 506, P.3d 334, 337 (2022))). We applied this exception to the general rule in Starr Surplus in anticipation of extensive litigation on the issue, and there has not been an increasing mass of cases that indicate confusion on applying Starr Surplus. Starr Surplus, 139 Nev. at 288, 535 P.3d at 259-60. Petitioners cite just one case—Treasure Island, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-965-JCMEJY, 2024 WL 1345212, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2024)—as “grappl[ing] with the application of [Starr Surplus].” Accordingly, there does not appear to be a need to “clarify an important issue of law” which would “serve [ ] judicial economy.” Starr Surplus, 139 Nev. at 288, 535 P.3d at 259 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, even if we were to entertain the petition and grant the requested relief, the claims relating to denial of coverage under Endorsement 11 would remain and therefore writ relief would not dispose of the entire suit. See Moore, 96 Nev. at 416-17, 610 P.2d at 189.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that extraordinary writ relief is unwarranted and deny the petition, without prejudice to Petitioners’ ability to properly raise these issues on appeal. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.