NV PT Juris common mistakes
NV PT Juris · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the PIP medical expense benefit limit as a single statewide dollar figure and applying it to every policy, instead of recognizing that the limit is a policy selection within the statutory range and that the applicable cap depends on the coverage option the insured purchased.
Candidates memorize one headline number from study summaries and never build the link between the statutory default, the optional higher and lower limits, and the declarations page. Exam items frequently test the interaction between the selected limit and the deductible, so a single memorized number produces wrong answers on several items.
What to do instead
Build a one-page grid: statutory default medical expense limit, the available lower and higher options, the deductible choices, and the co-payment rules. For each practice item, first identify which option the fact pattern states, then apply the corresponding cap. Drill at least ten items where the only variable is the selected option.
Confusing the lawsuit threshold election with the PIP coverage election, for example assuming that choosing the verbal threshold limits PIP medical benefits or that a zero-dollar deductible automatically means the verbal threshold does not apply.
Both elections appear on the same coverage selection form and both use the word option, so candidates collapse them into one decision. The two are legally independent: the tort option governs tort recovery for non-economic loss, while PIP options govern first-party medical and deductible structure.
What to do instead
Write a two-column comparison for tort options versus PIP options covering what each controls, who it protects, what must be signed, and what happens if the insured does not elect. Practice items that deliberately mix a verbal threshold with a high PIP deductible and require you to answer each issue separately.
Answering lawsuit-limitation questions by treating the verbal threshold as an absolute bar to any tort action, rather than applying the statutory exceptions and the requirement that the injury fall within a defined injury category or otherwise meet the threshold standard.
The phrase limitation on lawsuit sounds categorical, and candidates stop at the label. They miss that the limitation is a threshold the plaintiff must satisfy, with enumerated categories of qualifying injury and a case-law gloss on what evidence is needed.
What to do instead
Memorize the enumerated injury categories and the type of objective medical evidence required to support each. Then work through fact patterns where the injury is soft-tissue only and decide whether the threshold is met, writing one sentence of reasoning per category before choosing an answer.
Calculating income continuation benefits without applying the statutory percentage of lost wages, the maximum benefit limit, and the waiting period, and without accounting for coordination with other income sources such as employer wage continuation or disability benefits.
Candidates treat income continuation as a simple lost-wage reimbursement and skip the percentage factor, the cap, and the offset analysis. The arithmetic looks easy, so they rush and pick the gross-wage figure.
What to do instead
Use a fixed four-step worksheet on every income continuation item: determine gross lost earnings, apply the statutory percentage, cap at the maximum benefit, then subtract coordinated benefits. Practice with numbers that exceed the cap so the cap step cannot be skipped, and with overlapping employer benefits so the offset step is exercised.
Treating essential services benefits as identical to income continuation, or as payable for any household task the injured person used to perform, without applying the requirement that the services be necessary and that they be ones the injured person would have performed but for the accident.
Both benefits compensate for non-medical loss of function, so candidates blur them. They also overlook that essential services may be subject to a separate benefit limit and that the standard is necessity plus causation, not mere inconvenience.
What to do instead
Create a side-by-side table of income continuation versus essential services covering what is replaced, the eligibility standard, the benefit limit, and typical documentation. Then classify ten short scenarios into one category or the other, including borderline cases such as childcare and lawn care.
Missing the death benefit analysis entirely or misstating its relationship to the medical expense limit, for example assuming death benefits are always paid on top of the full medical expense limit rather than under the statutory structure for survivor benefits.
Death benefits are a small part of the course and appear late in study, so candidates skim them. Items that combine a fatal accident with unpaid medical bills and income loss expose the gap.
What to do instead
Write a short paragraph on death benefits covering who may claim, what expenses and losses are covered, and how the benefit relates to the medical expense limit. Then solve two combined fact patterns that require allocating unpaid medical bills, survivor income loss, and funeral expenses.
Failing to apply the deductible and co-payment mechanics correctly, such as deducting the full deductible from every bill, ignoring that the deductible applies once per accident per person, or omitting the statutory co-payment percentage from the reimbursement calculation.
Candidates learn the definitions but never practice the arithmetic sequence. The order of operations matters: the deductible is applied before the co-payment percentage, and misordering produces a plausible but wrong number.
What to do instead
Practice a set of billing scenarios with a running ledger: total charges, deductible application, co-payment percentage, remaining payable amount, and provider reimbursement. Do at least eight calculations with different deductibles and multiple providers so the once-per-accident rule is reinforced.
Describing the dispute resolution process as a generic appeal to a court or to the insurer's internal review, instead of identifying the statutory PIP arbitration mechanism, its filing requirements, the role of the dispute resolution professional, and the limited grounds and deadlines for challenging the award.
Candidates conflate the internal claim appeal, the regulatory complaint process, and PIP arbitration into one undifferentiated appeal path. They also memorize the existence of arbitration without learning the filing content requirements or the time limits.
What to do instead
Draw a decision tree: claim denied, internal reconsideration, PIP arbitration filing with required content and time limit, award, then the narrow appeal route. Annotate each node with the deadline and the document required. Then answer items that ask which forum is correct for a given dispute amount or issue type.
Treating fraud prevention as a reporting slogan rather than a set of concrete obligations, so answers omit the insurer's duty to maintain anti-fraud plans, the internal reporting structure, the referral of suspected fraud to the appropriate authority, and the immunity and confidentiality provisions that accompany good-faith reporting.
Fraud material reads like policy narrative, so candidates memorize the word fraud and skip the operational duties. Items testing who must report, to whom, and with what protection then defeat them.
What to do instead
Build a compliance checklist: anti-fraud plan elements, designated responsibility, documentation of suspected fraudulent claims, referral timing, and good-faith immunity. For each element write one sentence on the consequence of noncompliance, then answer scenario items where a producer or adjuster suspects staged medical billing.
Answering unfair claims practice and producer responsibility items by choosing the most severe-sounding sanction or the most general ethical statement, rather than identifying the specific prohibited act, the specific regulatory standard, and the specific consequence tied to that act.
These items are written as scenario judgments and candidates default to moral language. They also confuse market conduct examination findings with individual licensing discipline, so the remedy they select does not match the violation described.
What to do instead
Memorize the enumerated prohibited claims practices and the licensing standards for producers, then map each to its typical consequence: regulatory examination finding, fine, license suspension or revocation, or civil liability. Practice ten scenarios where you must name the specific violation before selecting the remedy.