When Nevada’s 2025 legislative session concluded, of the 588 bills and resolutions that passed, this article discusses several relevant to civil litigants.

Assembly Bill 3
Assembly Bill 3 started as a simple change requested by the courts to raise the jurisdictional limit for Nevada’s court-annexed arbitration and short-trial programs from $50,000 to $100,000. That change was approved and takes effect on January 1, 2026.

However, the Nevada Justice Association (NJA) initially opposed the bill and extracted concessions from the court. There are several other changes that will take effect on January 1, 2026. The list of cases automatically exempt from the programs was expanded. It now includes:

• Actions in which an insurer is alleged to have acted in bad faith regarding its obligations to provide insurance coverage and punitive damages are sought
• Actions involving sexual assault or sexual battery
• Actions for product liability.

When the Supreme Court revised its rules governing the program in 2022, it did not change the $3,000 cap for recoverable attorneys’ fees for arbitration cases, but did raise the cap to $15,000 for short trials. The NJA’s amendments raised the recoverable attorneys’ fees to $15,000 for arbitration cases.

Several of the NJA’s other proposals were not adopted. For instance, it proposed deleting NRS 38.359’s requirement that the arbitrator’s nonbinding award be presented to a jury in a subsequent trial. It also proposed limiting short-trial cases to those where the arbitration award is $50,000 or less. If the arbitration award is more than $50,000 and trial de novo is requested, then the case would have been removed to the standard district court process.

There may be constitutionality concerns about the raised cap on attorneys’ fees. However, these concerns are far weaker than the concerns that still exist concerning NRS 629.620.

Assembly Bill 512
One of the big headlines from the 2023 legislative session was a bill that banned eroding or burning limits policies. It was codified as NRS 679A.210. The statute is very broadly worded. “[A]n insurer shall not issue or renew a policy of liability insurance that contains a provision that (1) reduces the limit of liability stated in the policy by the costs of defense, legal costs and fees, and other expenses for claims, or otherwise limits the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees, and other expenses for claims.”

This created problems in the insurance market. The Division of Insurance (DOI) promulgated regulations to address those problems. DOI concluded NRS 679A.210 applies to a policy of casualty insurance that: 

• Provides insurance against legal liability arising from the ownership or operation of a motor vehicle 
• Provides insurance against legal liability arising from the ownership of housing occupied by the owner of the housing
• Is a policy of commercial general liability insurance
• Is a policy of commercial automobile insurance 
• Or provides insurance covering the professional liability of certain providers of health care. 

DOI regulations exempted from NRS 679A.210 (1) risk retention groups, (2) captive insurance that does not cover third-party liability, and (3) a non-admitted insurer.

It was debatable whether DOI’s regulations were consistent with NRS 679A.210 because the statute does not contain this guidance. AB 512 resolved that by codifying DOI’s regulations. These changes become effective on October 1, 2025.

AB 512 also expanded the definition of casualty insurance. It had included vehicle insurance, liability insurance, workers' compensation, and employers' liability insurance as well as various other types of casualty insurance. AB 512 added “legal expenses insurance” to the definition. This is “insurance against any liability of a person or entity for the costs of any specific legal services or specific legal expenses and that pays or reimburses the person for the costs of the services or expenses.” This was added by amendment, apparently at the request of a prepaid legal services group.

Senate Bill 258
SB 258 is a direct reaction to the Supreme Court of Nevada’s AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Vasquez decision in late 2024. Vasquez overruled 38 years of precedent concerning how workers’ compensation liens are resolved in personal injury claims. In 1986, the Supreme Court created a formula allowing the parties and carriers to calculate with reasonable certainty how much of a workers’ compensation lien would be paid after a personal injury recovery. It was known as the Breen formula. Vasquez invalidated it and stated NRS 616C.215(5) governed instead.

Vasquez created significant short-term uncertainty in personal injury litigation. NRS 616C.215(5) did not contain a formula determining the amount of the lien that must be reimbursed. Nor does it indicate that the insurer must bear any costs the worker might have incurred in pursuing the third-party recovery. Also, it does not require the carrier to reduce its lien. This made negotiating settlements involving a workers’ compensation lien more difficult. Previously, the parties could reasonably calculate what would be reimbursed and adjust their settlement targets accordingly. However, that was no longer possible after Breen was overruled. While the compensation carrier could then recover more of its lien, the casualty carrier could pay more to settle a claim involving a compensation lien.

The NJA was involved with SB 258. As originally drafted, it was debatable whether any workers’ compensation lien could ever be enforced. The bill was amended significantly. As signed by the governor, it inserts a new section to be labeled NRS 616C.215(7).

Effective May 31, 2025, NRS 616C.215(7)(a) limits the workers’ compensation carrier’s lien to the lesser of:

• The amount of the lien as reduced by paragraph (b) or
• One third of the total amount recovered from the person other than the employer or person in the same employ, as reduced pursuant to paragraph (b). As used in this subparagraph, “total amount recovered” means the total proceeds described in subsection 5, including, without limitation, any attorneys’ fees or costs and the monetary value of any virtual currency, securities, real property, personal property, or intellectual property that is part of the judgment, settlement, or other means of recovery, as applicable, as calculated on the date on which the judgment, settlement, or other document providing for the other means of recovery, as applicable, is executed.

Paragraph (b) creates a procedure. The lien “must be reduced by an amount equal to one half of the reasonable costs incurred by the injured employee … in prosecuting or settling the claim against a person other than the employer or person in the same employ.” The plaintiff must provide an “itemized memorandum of any such reasonable costs.” It must be verified by the injured employee or the injured employee’s lawyer. It is “subject to judicial review in a court of competent jurisdiction, if a petition is filed within 30 days after the date on which the insurer or Administrator receives a verified itemized memorandum.”

One problem is that the phrase “reasonable costs” is never defined. That will presumably lead to disputes and eventually definition from an appellate court. The statute does not limit “reasonable costs” to those a prevailing party would recover per NRS 18.005.

Assembly Bill 523
AB 523 arose from a long, continuing battle between a rideshare company and the plaintiffs’ bar across the country. The company funded an initiative to cap personal injury attorneys’ fees at no more than 20 percent. The NJA sued to block the initiative and won on a procedural point. They both then took their battle to the 2025 legislative session.

AB 523 is a compromise bill. The two sides agreed to support it and not attempt other legislation or initiatives against the other for six years. Transportation network companies now must provide at least $1 million in bodily injury coverage for its independent drivers who provide transportation services. If so, then these companies are “not vicariously liable for any act or omission of a driver that harms a person or property under any theory of liability or duty of care.” They also “shall be deemed to not control, direct, or manage a driver or the personal vehicle of a driver.”

This constitutes détente. The NJA has minimum levels of insurance to pursue, and won’t face another attempt to cap attorneys’ fees until at least 2031.Transportation network companies are not required to provide excess or umbrella coverage and no longer face potential vicarious liability for its independent drivers so long as the required insurance is in place.

The bill becomes effective on October 1, 2025.

Senate Bill 194
SB 194 affects rental car agencies. The sponsors indicated the agencies were experiencing a problem whereby individuals without personal vehicle insurance were using rental vehicles as a substitute for personal vehicle ownership, thus disproportionately impacting the financial stability of short-term lessors of vehicles due to elevated insurance claims. SB 194 aimed to close this loophole by requiring all renters to demonstrate proof of personal automobile insurance, thereby ensuring that rental vehicles are not used as an alternative to personal vehicle insurance.

Under existing law, rental car agencies cannot require a renter to purchase additional insurance. However, effective October 1, 2025, they must require renters to “provide proof of insurance that satisfies the minimum amount of insurance coverage set forth in NRS 485.185 as a condition for the lease of the passenger car.” If the renter does not do so, the rental agency may sell a temporary policy, refer the renter to a third party to purchase temporary insurance, or refuse to rent the vehicle.

Assembly Bill 198
If you have been to a child’s birthday party or school event in the past 15 years, you likely have encountered inflatable play structures. They are a relatively steady source of claims. AB 198 attempts to regulate them.

Effective January 1, 2026, AB 198 applies to an “inflatable device” that:

• Incorporates certain structural and mechanical elements to achieve its strength, shape, and stability by tensioning from internal air pressure 
• Is intended for use by a person to bounce, play, slide, climb, or otherwise interact for outdoor recreation 
• Includes a constant air-inflatable bounce house, inflatable water slide, or similar device.

The operators must now carry at least $1 million of insurance. They must conduct and maintain a record of inspections for at least two years, which conveniently matches the personal injury statute of limitations. They are barred “from allowing any person to use the inflatable device if an inspection reveals or would have revealed a hazard or potential hazard that would make use of the inflatable device unsafe,” as defined in a user manual or certain other authorities. Operators must now “(1) monitor wind speed at any location where an inflatable device will be used at all times while the device is in use and (2) cease operation of the inflatable device if the wind speed exceeds the recommendation of the manufacturer or 15 miles per hour, whichever is greater.” The way the device is anchored is now regulated, and operators are required to post a sign with certain information.

Assembly Bill 451
Effective on October 1, 2025, AB 451 provides immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances to a licensed firearms dealer or local law enforcement agency who returns a firearm to the owner of the firearm pursuant to a firearm hold agreement. Under such agreements, the licensed firearm dealer or local law enforcement agency (1) takes possession of the owner's firearm at the request of the owner and (2) returns the firearm to the owner according to the terms of the agreement.

Senate Bill 406
The state immunizes itself from any liability arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senate Bill 320
NRS 484B.450 prohibits vehicles from stopping, standing, or parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk. SB 320 expands that to include both marked and unmarked crosswalks. It takes effect on October 1, 2025.

Assembly Bill 565 | Senate Bill 478 | Senate Bill 485
These are three budget bills the courts state will allow them to finish work on a statewide trial court electronic filing system. This is an issue of access to justice. Only Washoe and Clark counties have electronic filing. By contrast, Oregon has a statewide program, and this helps people in legal deserts access lawyers in urban centers.

Senate Bill 478 allocated funds for “upgrading the appellate court case management system.”

Assembly Joint Resolution 8
This resolution proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to provide for the establishment of a business court. The idea seemingly is to further compete with Delaware.

Notable Bills that Did Not Pass

Assembly Bill 158
Proposed by Assembly member Roth (D), AB 158 would have expanded general jurisdiction in Nevada to an entity that “is organized, registered or qualified to do business pursuant to the laws of this State.” Simply stated, merely registering to do business in Nevada would create general jurisdiction over that entity. This could expose entities to lawsuits in Nevada that have nothing to do with the state. It could also lead to extreme forum shopping because of the potential to sue entities anywhere. It never received any attention in committee.

Senate Bill 363
Proposed by Senator Hansen (R). This was a tort reform bill that was never going to pass. It would have:

• Significantly changed the scope of vicarious liability for employee negligence 
• Changed NRS 41.141 to allow a jury to consider the negligence of all persons who contributed to the event at issue, not just the remaining parties at trial
• Repealed joint and several liability in certain circumstances
• Abolished the collateral source doctrine and limited the medical damages to the amount paid
• Capped attorneys’ fees for lawyers that represented injured workers in worker’s compensation matters to 20 percent.

Senate Bill 365
Proposed by Senators Titus (R) and Hansen (R), SB 365 was another tort reform bill that was never going to pass. It would have capped plaintiffs’ lawyers’ contingency fees at 20 percent.