Jurisdictional changes may be coming to Nevada's court
annexed non-binding arbitration program, which currently involves
most civil cases where the amount in controversy is $50,000 or
less. Nevada's courts have proposed AB 3, which is currently before the
Assembly's judiciary committee. This bill would change the NRS
38.310(1)(a) jurisdictional cap for that program from $50,000 to
$100,000, effective for cases filed on or after January 1, 2026.
The arbitration program was created in 1992 with an original cap of
$25,000. That cap was increased to $40,000 in 1995 and raised to
$50,000 in 2005. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index Inflation Calculator estimates that the buying power of
$50,000 in February 2005 equates to approximately $83,000 of buying
power in January 2025.
Proponents of AB 3 testified at a committee hearing that the
percentage of civil cases entering the program has dropped by
nearly 20% in recent years due to inflationary pressures negatively
impacting medical bills, property damage repairs, and other types
of damages. If fewer cases enter the program, the caseload for the
district courts increases. Proponents assert that by increasing the
cap to $100,000, the number of cases entering the program should
return to historical averages.
AB 3 generally appears to benefit defense clients. The arbitration
program was expressly designed to streamline discovery and reduce
litigation costs, allowing lower-value disputes to be litigated on
their merits. Raising the jurisdictional cap to $100,000 would
benefit litigants by enabling more cases to enter the program.
Another benefit of program participation is that principal damages
are capped at the jurisdictional maximum.
At a committee hearing on February 17,
several attorneys testified in support of AB 3, but there was no
participation from broker or carrier lobbying groups. Notably, the
plaintiff-oriented Nevada Justice Association (NJA) testified that
while it presently opposes AB 3, it is willing to work with the
bill's proponents to reach a compromise. However, the NJA did
not hint regarding what it may want in return for supporting AB
3.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
