Fire Insurance Exchange v. Zenith Radio Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial court’s sanctions of striking defendant’s affirmative defense and affirmatively establishing certain matters in plaintiff’s favor deprived defendant of its opportunity to be heard
• suggesting that in the context of an action for spoilation of evidence, notification of potential litigation triggers the obligation to preserve evidence
• upholding summary judgment, as a discovery sanction, of an insurance company’s subrogation claim because the TV which the insurance company’s expert examined and determined to be the cause of a fire in a home was destroyed
• noting, in the context of NRCP 37 discovery sanctions, that “even where an action has not been commenced and there is only a potential for litigation, the litigant is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action”
• Insurance company’s expert determined television was cause of fire, but authorized destruction before filing complaint.
• party responsible for spoliation barred from presenting testimony of expert witness resulting in summary judgment for other party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).