Saylor v. Arcotta, 126 Nev. 92

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court clarified the limitations periods applicable to equitable indemnity and contribution claims arising from alleged medical malpractice. It held that equitable indemnity claims are governed by NRS 11.190(2)(c), while contribution claims are governed by NRS 17.285. Because no judgment or actual loss had occurred, the limitations periods had not begun to run, and the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded.

Holdings

1. An equitable indemnity claim arising from medical-malpractice allegations is not governed by the medical-malpractice limitations period in NRS 41A.097(2); it is governed by the four-year limitations period for actions on implied contracts under NRS 11.190(2)(c).
2. A contribution claim is governed by the specific one-year limitations period in NRS 17.285(3), which begins after a judgment against two or more tortfeasors becomes final by lapse of time for appeal or after appellate review.
3. The district court erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing the appellants' third-party complaint as time-barred because the applicable limitations periods for equitable indemnity and contribution had not begun to run.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims for equitable indemnity arising from medical-malpractice allegations are governed by the medical-malpractice limitations period in NRS 41A.097(2) or by the limitations period for actions on implied contracts in NRS 11.190(2)(c).
2. Whether a contribution claim is governed by the fixed limitations period in NRS 17.285 rather than the medical-malpractice limitations period in NRS 41A.097(2).
3. Whether the appellants' equitable indemnity and contribution claims were time-barred before any judgment, settlement, or actual loss had occurred.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded