Costello v. Casler, 127 Nev. 436

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that an amended complaint naming a decedent's estate may relate back under NRCP 15(c) when the original complaint timely named the decedent, the decedent's insurer had actual notice and knowledge of the action within the limitations period, and the estate would not suffer prejudice. The court held that the insurer's notice and knowledge could be imputed to the estate, reversed summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. When a plaintiff timely files a complaint naming a deceased defendant instead of the decedent's estate, an amended complaint naming the estate may relate back to the date of the original pleading under NRCP 15(c) if the estate received actual notice of the action within the limitations period, knew it was the proper party, and would not be prejudiced.
2. A decedent's insurer's notice and knowledge of the institution of an action may be imputed to the decedent's estate for purposes of satisfying the relation-back requirements of NRCP 15(c), when the insurer had actual notice within the limitations period and the estate suffers no prejudice.
3. Summary judgment was improper because the amendment adding Casler's estate was not barred by the statute of limitations and should have been permitted to relate back under NRCP 15(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether an amendment adding a decedent's estate as a defendant may relate back under NRCP 15(c) when the original complaint timely named the decedent individually.
2. Whether notice and knowledge of the action possessed by the decedent's insurer may be imputed to the decedent's estate for purposes of satisfying NRCP 15(c).
3. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds and denied leave to amend.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded