Can I go after a property insurance company for an injury on their property?

While you may have a claim against the bar (not directly against the insurance at this time), failure to provide security claims can be difficult. The Nevada Legislature enacted NRS 651.015 to “codify what was the old law with respect” to duty by innkeepers. In doing so, the Legislature set forth a general limitation precluding the imposition of civil liability on an innkeeper unless the death or injury of a patron was caused by the foreseeable wrongful act of a third party (duty), and there is a preponderance of evidence to show a failure to exercise due care. NRS 651.015(1). The preliminary inquiry in any case involving innkeeper liability is whether “[t]he wrongful act which caused the death or injury was foreseeable,” and thus, whether a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff. NRS 651.015(2)(a). The determination of foreseeability as it relates to an innkeeper's duty of care to a patron must be made by the district court as a matter of law. In determining whether a wrongful act is “foreseeable” and gives rise to a duty, a wrongful act is not “foreseeable” unless: (a) owner failed to exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises; or (b) prior incidents of similar wrongful acts occurred on the premises and the owner had notice or knowledge of those incidents. NRS 651.015(3). "Although an innkeeper cannot guarantee the safety of guests, the Legislature recognized that certain minimum precautions are necessary and concluded that a judge should be given broad leeway in evaluating foreseeability on a case-by-case basis. Id. As a result, the Legislature added the phrase 'the owner or keeper failed to exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises' to the definition of 'foreseeable,' which ensured that a duty could be imposed 'regardless of whether or not there had been prior [similar] incidents” of wrongful conduct.'" Estate of Smith v. Mahoney's Silver Nugget, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 76, at p. 5 (2011). NRS 651.015(3) therefore allows a judge to evaluate evidence of “[p]rior incidents of similar wrongful acts” or any other circumstances related to the exercise of “due care” when imposing a duty, and to examine the “totality of the circumstances” beyond the existence of “similar wrongful acts” in determining the existence of a duty. Id.