Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada denied petitions for en banc reconsideration of its prior decision reversing a judgment in a constructional defect case and remanding for a new trial. The court held that its prior decision was consistent with Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. and that comparative negligence may be relevant when a homeowner participates in the design or construction of a residence and contributes to a defect. The court also rejected challenges concerning special verdict forms, the allocation of liability under Nevada construction-defect statutes, the district court's discretion, and jury instructions; separate opinions would have granted reconsideration to address related statutory and economic-loss issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prior decision was inconsistent with Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. by permitting comparative negligence in a constructional defect action involving homeowner participation in design and construction.
- Whether NRS 41.141 and NRS 40.640(1) preclude allocation of liability between a homeowner and contractor for constructional defects.
- Whether the prior decision conflicted with Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. by requiring special verdict forms when multiple theories of liability and comparative negligence are presented.
- Whether requiring a special verdict form violated the district court's asserted absolute discretion over verdict forms.
- Whether the prior decision conflicted with precedent concerning requested jury instructions, prejudice, and a party's right to appeal.
Holdings
- The prior decision did not implicitly overrule Shuette. Comparative negligence may be raised when a homeowner participates in planning or designing the residence and that participation proximately contributes to the alleged constructional defect.
- NRS 40.640(1) permits allocation of liability between homeowners and contractors whose acts or omissions caused a constructional defect, including where the homeowner's participation in design or construction contributed to the defect.
- A special verdict form is required in a constructional defect case when the parties present multiple theories of liability and one party asserts comparative negligence as a defense, so that the jury's theory of liability and allocation of responsibility can be determined.
- A district court's selection of a verdict form is subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion and is not subject to an absolute discretion rule.
- The prior decision did not conflict with the requirement that an appellant demonstrate prejudice and the likelihood of a different outcome from an erroneous jury instruction because Skender satisfied that requirement.
Key quotations
“En banc reconsideration is disfavored, and this court will only reconsider a matter when necessary to ensure consistency in our decisions or when the case implicates important precedential, public policy, or constitutional issues.” (746)
“Without a special verdict form, neither the district court nor this court could determine whether or exactly how the jury's verdict was divided between negligence and breach of contract.” (748)
Factual background
The underlying action involved alleged constructional defects in a residence. Marilyn Skender supplied the design plans and actively participated in overseeing construction. The prior appellate decision held that comparative negligence could be relevant when a homeowner's participation in planning and design proximately contributed to a constructional defect, and required a special verdict form where multiple liability theories and comparative negligence were presented.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court of Nevada had previously reversed the district court's judgment and an award of interest, costs, and attorney fees, and remanded for a new trial. Both sides sought en banc reconsideration, asserting conflicts with statutory provisions and prior Nevada decisions. The court denied both petitions.