ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY BOWPN1900216 BOWPN1900217 BOWPN1900376 BOWPN1900381 BOWPN1900411 19CVSSPNP301531 B62030BAA PD 10319 05 BOWPN1900218 BNPD19AA507A SE v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Real Party in Interest. (2026)

Supreme Court of Nevada.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; Lexington Insurance Company; Interstate Fire & Casualty Company; Arch Specialty Insurance Company; National Fire & Marine Insurance Company; Ace American Insurance Company; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. BOWPN1900216; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. BOWPN1900217; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. BOWPN1900376; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. BOWPN1900381; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. BOWPN1900411; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. 19CVSSPNP301531; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. B62030BAA; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. PD-10319-05; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. BOWPN1900218; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. BNPD19AA507A; Continental Casualty Company; Everest Indemnity Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; Great Lakes Insurance SE; and Tokio Marine America Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Joanna Kishner, District Judge, Respondents, Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Real Party in Interest.

No. 90077

Decided: January 08, 2026

Clyde & Co US LLP/Chicago Clyde & Co US LLP/Las Vegas Clyde & Co US LLP/Washington D.C. Dentons US LLP/Washington DC DLA Piper LLP/New York Duane Morris LLP/Las Vegas Garin Law Group/Las Vegas Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Las Vegas Kemp Jones, LLP/Las Vegas McDonald Carano LLP/Las Vegas Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass LLP/New Jersey Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass LLP/New York Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP/New York Robins Kaplan LLP/Boston Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP/Las Vegas Zelle LLP/Washington DC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for writ of mandamus challenges a district court order compelling an appraisal. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Ultimately, whether to consider a writ of mandamus is within this court's sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude Petitioners have failed to demonstrate writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating extraordinary writ relief is warranted). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law