If you have been injured in a car accident in Las Vegas, you will likely hear the insurance company say something like: “We’re still investigating fault.” What that usually means is not a neutral investigation; it means the insurer is actively looking for ways to shift blame onto you.
In Nevada auto accident cases, fault equals money. Because Nevada follows a modified comparative negligence system, even a small increase in your percentage of fault can significantly reduce or completely eliminate your compensation under NRS 41.141.
Insurance companies understand this better than anyone, and they build their defense strategies around it.
Why Insurance Companies Focus So Heavily on Fault in Nevada
Under Nevada law, an injured person can recover damages only if their fault is not greater than the fault of the other party or parties combined. Any recovery is reduced by the injured person’s percentage of fault.
From an insurance company’s perspective:
- Increasing your fault from 10% to 30% saves them 20% of the claim
- Increasing your fault from 49% to 51% eliminates the claim entirely
That makes comparative negligence the single most powerful cost-control tool insurers have in Las Vegas auto accident litigation.
Tactic #1: The “Recorded Statement” Trap
One of the first things an insurance adjuster will request is a recorded statement. They may tell you it is “routine” or “required to process your claim.” It is neither.
The real purpose of a recorded statement is to:
- Lock you into language before you understand the facts
- Elicit admissions of uncertainty or hesitation
- Create inconsistencies that can later be framed as fault
Adjusters are trained to ask questions such as:
- “How fast do you think you were going?”
- “Could you have stopped sooner?”
- “Did you see the other vehicle before impact?”
- “Is it possible you were distracted?”
Even innocent answers can be used later to argue comparative negligence.
Tactic #2: Selective Use of the Police Report
Police reports are important—but they are not conclusive. Insurance companies often:
- Highlight unfavorable portions of the report
- Ignore favorable witness statements
- Treat preliminary opinions as final conclusions
In Las Vegas, police officers often arrive after the accident has occurred. Their fault assessments are based on limited information. Insurers know this, but they will still present the report as authoritative if it helps shift blame.
If the report lists you as “contributing,” even without a citation, insurers may argue that you bear partial fault under Nevada’s comparative negligence law.
Tactic #3: Speed and “Too Fast for Conditions” Arguments
One of the most common fault-shifting tactics in Nevada car accident claims is alleging that the injured driver was:
- Speeding
- Driving too fast for traffic
- Driving too fast for the weather or road conditions
Even if the other driver:
- Ran a red light
- Made an illegal turn
- Rear-ended you
Insurers may argue that your speed prevented you from avoiding the collision. This tactic is particularly common in:
- Rear-end collisions
- Left-turn accidents
- Highway crashes in Las Vegas
These arguments are designed to increase your comparative fault percentage—even when speed was not the primary cause of the crash.
Tactic #4: Distraction Allegations Without Proof
Insurance companies routinely allege distraction, even in the absence of evidence. Common accusations include:
- Cell phone use
- Looking at navigation
- Adjusting music or climate controls
- “Failure to maintain proper lookout”
In many cases, there is no phone data, no video, and no witness confirming distraction. The allegation alone is used as leverage to reduce settlement value.
Under Nevada’s comparative negligence system, the insurer does not need to prove distraction conclusively to benefit. They only need enough ambiguity to argue shared fault.
Tactic #5: Failure to Take “Evasive Action”
Another favorite insurance argument is that the injured driver:
- Failed to brake soon enough
- Failed to swerve
- Failed to anticipate the other driver’s negligence
This tactic shifts the focus from who caused the accident to how you reacted to it.
Nevada law does not require drivers to predict illegal or reckless conduct by others. Nevertheless, insurers frequently argue that a “reasonable driver” would have avoided the crash—thereby assigning partial fault.
Tactic #6: Using Injury Timing to Suggest Fault
Insurance companies sometimes argue fault indirectly by questioning injuries:
- “If you were paying attention, you wouldn’t have been hurt this badly”
- “Your injuries suggest you didn’t brace or react”
- “Delayed treatment means the accident wasn’t serious”
These arguments improperly conflate injury severity with fault, but they are often effective with unrepresented claimants.
Under comparative negligence, anything that suggests inattentiveness can be repurposed as fault.
Tactic #7: Multi-Defendant Confusion
In accidents involving:
- Multiple vehicles
- Commercial drivers
- Rideshare vehicles
- Construction zones
Insurers may attempt to:
- Minimize their insured’s role
- Emphasize the complexity of fault
- Delay resolution while fault percentages are disputed
Nevada’s several-liability framework under NRS 41.141 means each defendant is responsible only for their share of fault. Insurers exploit this by arguing that someone else bears more responsibility, even when their insured clearly contributed to the crash.
Tactic #8: Arguing Comparative Negligence Where It Does Not Apply
Not every case legitimately supports a comparative negligence defense. As Nevada courts have made clear, comparative negligence applies only where the plaintiff’s fault is a bona fide issue.
Nevertheless, insurers often assert comparative negligence reflexively—even when:
- The injured party was legally incapable of negligence
- There is no factual support for shared fault
- The defense is speculative
This tactic increases litigation pressure and settlement uncertainty, even when legally weak.
Tactic #9: Settlement Pressure Based on “Risk of Trial”
Insurance adjusters frequently warn claimants:
- “A jury might find you mostly at fault”
- “Comparative negligence makes this risky”
- “You could walk away with nothing”
These statements are designed to pressure injured victims into undervaluing their claims. While comparative negligence is real, insurers often exaggerate its likely impact.
An experienced Las Vegas car accident lawyer understands how Nevada juries actually evaluate fault—and how to counter inflated risk narratives.
How Experienced Las Vegas Car Accident Lawyers Counter These Tactics
Effective representation focuses on:
- Controlling the narrative of fault
- Preventing damaging statements
- Developing independent evidence
- Using Nevada Supreme Court precedent to limit improper fault allocation
This includes:
- Accident reconstruction
- Expert testimony
- Challenging speculative defenses
- Strategic jury instruction requests
Comparative negligence cuts both ways. When an experienced attorney uses it properly, it protects injured victims from unfair all-or-nothing outcomes. When abused, it becomes an insurance weapon.
Why Early Legal Guidance Matters in Nevada Auto Accident Claims
Many fault-shifting tactics succeed early—before a lawsuit is ever filed. Once damaging statements are recorded or settlement positions hardened, recovery may already be compromised.
Consulting a Las Vegas car accident lawyer early helps:
- Preserve evidence
- Prevent fault inflation
- Accurately evaluate comparative negligence exposure
- Maximize settlement or verdict value under NRS 41.141
Protect Your Rights After a Las Vegas Car Accident
Don’t let insurance companies decide your fault or reduce your claim unfairly. Contact an experienced Las Vegas car accident lawyer today to review your case, preserve critical evidence, and ensure your compensation is maximized under Nevada’s comparative negligence laws.
Schedule a confidential consultation now at (702) 878-2889 or through our online form and take the first step toward protecting your recovery.