Gary Lewis v. United Automobile Insurance Company, et al.

The question presented is whether the constitutional right to a jury trial can be usurped by the trial court and appellate court interfering with the jury’s fact finding role? Can the rule of law and our federalism survive if the United States Supreme Court neglects its duty to correct the Circuit Courts when they, with impunity, deny the right to a jury trial? Petitioner Gary Lewis (“Insured”), an American consumer, sued his liability insurance carrier, Respondent United Automobile Insurance Company (“Insurer”), in 2009. Since then, the federal courts, though determining he suffered some damages from a breach of the duty to defend, have denied Lewis a jury trial or even one evidentiary hearing and disregarded all of the following: an excess of $3,000,000.00 2008 Nevada state court judgment damaging the insured; a similar 2018 Nevada state court judgment damaging the insured; a similar 2018 California state court judgment damaging the insured; clear Nevada precedent in the almost identical case of Allstate v. Miller requiring a jury trial on the reasonableness of the Insurer’s discharge of its duty of affirmative good faith and fair dealing; clear Nevada precedent arising out of the almost identical federal case of Andrew v. Century Surety requiring a jury trial on all damages caused to the insured; and other damages in addition to the judgments alleged in the complaint. Ultimately, the federal courts ruled on contested material facts against the Insured. These improper rulings took the case from the jury on