ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY INTERSTATE FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO BOWPN1900216 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO BOWPN1900217 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO BOWPN1900376 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO BOWPN1900381 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO BOWPN1900411 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO 19CVSSPNP301531 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO B62030BAA CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO PD 10319 05 BRIT SYNDICATE 2987 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO BOWPN1900218 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD 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 v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus, or alternatively, prohibition arising out of a contract dispute over insurance coverage.

Our decision to issue writ relief is purely discretionary. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). “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.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see NRS 34.160. A writ of prohibition may be warranted when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Club Vista Fin. Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012).

The instant petition follows the denial of a motion to dismiss. Ordinarily, we “will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss [and will only do so when] ․ the issue is not fact-bound and involves an unsettled and potentially significant, recurring question of law.” Buckwaiter v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010). “We adopted this policy because very few writ petitions warrant extraordinary relief, and this court expends an enormous amount of time and effort processing these petitions.” Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). “Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Petitioners have failed to demonstrate an exception to our general rule of declining to entertain a petition for writ relief, following the denial of a motion to dismiss, that would warrant our intervention here. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Herndon, C.J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.

Cadish, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Patricia Lee, Justice, recused herself from participating in the decision on this matter.