Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245
Effect of release or covenant not to sue
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 17.245 Effect of release or covenant not to sue.
1. When a release or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death:
(a) It does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms so provide, but it reduces the claim against the others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater; and
(b) It discharges the tortfeasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution and for equitable indemnity to any other tortfeasor.
2. As used in this section, “equitable indemnity” means a right of indemnity that is created by the court rather than expressly provided for in a written agreement.
(Added to NRS by 1973, 1303; A 1997, 438)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Otak Nevada, Llc v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark
Otak Nevada, Llc v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013)
“Otak filed in the district court a motion for approval of good-faith settlement based on NRS 17.245. The district court denied the motion because it found that a $45,000 settlement was not a fair settlement amount for the plaintiffs, and thus, was not in good faith.”
The Doctors Co. v. Vincent (2004)
“Third, any joint tort-feasor in a multi-defendant tort action may obtain protection from claims of contribution and implied indemnity by settling with the tort claimant in good faith under NRS 17.245. Fourth, the district court’s discretion in determining the good or bad faith…”
J.E. JOHNS & ASSOCS. VS. LINDBERG (2020)
“To address these arguments, we first consider NRS 17.245(1X0s "same injury" requirement.”
MOTOR COACH INDUS., INC. VS. KHIABANI (2021)
“Respondents argue that Nevada's offset statute, NRS 17.245, does not apply to strictly liable defendants like MCI because they are not entitled to contribution.”
Troyer v. Adams (2003)
“2d 561, 563 (1991) ("determination of good faith" for purposes of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245 (2001) [28] "should be left to the discretion of the trial court based upon all relevant facts available, and.”
Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2000)
“225, NRS 17.245, NRS 17.255, and NRS 17.305 together, the prohibition against contribution in favor of persons liable in tort for intentional misconduct would make no sense if intentional tortfeasors were entitled to an equitable offset for settlements made by joint offenders.”
State v. Eaton (1985)
“Pursuant to NRS 17.245, 3 the district court reduced the jury award by $29,000.”
Medallion Development, Inc. v. Converse Consultants (1997)
“The Homeowners Association filed a motion in district court to find “that the proposed settlement is in good faith” pursuant to NRS 17.245. The Homeowners Association represented that respondents “were partially responsible for certain construction defects, namely drainage and…”
Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Davidson (1991)
“[Headnote 1] NRS 17.245 requires a settlement to be a “good faith” settlement, but gives little guidance in applying this standard.”
Insurance Co. of the West v. Gibson Tile Co. (2006)
“67, 73 , 214 P. 532, 534 (1923) (stating that, "when a contract is invalid or for any reason unenforceable, it necessarily follows that no right of action exists for damages occasioned by the breach thereof").”
Western Technologies, Inc. v. All-American Golf Center, Inc. (2006)
“Subsequently, the district court granted the settling parties’ motion for a determination of a good-faith settlement under NRS 17.245. The parties did not, however, request the district court to allocate the settlement amount among the various constructional defects.”
Russ v. General Motors Corp. (1995)
“NRS 17.245 (emphasis added). The key question in this case is whether the “any and all persons, firms or corporations” language in the release signed by Laura discharged General Motors and Fairway.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(1) — 5 cases
Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2000)
“225, NRS 17.245, NRS 17.255, and NRS 17.305 together, the prohibition against contribution in favor of persons liable in tort for intentional misconduct would make no sense if intentional tortfeasors were entitled to an equitable offset for settlements made by joint offenders.”
The Doctors Co. v. Vincent (2004)
“Third, any joint tort-feasor in a multi-defendant tort action may obtain protection from claims of contribution and implied indemnity by settling with the tort claimant in good faith under NRS 17.245. Fourth, the district court’s discretion in determining the good or bad faith…”
J.E. JOHNS & ASSOCS. VS. LINDBERG (2020)
“To address these arguments, we first consider NRS 17.245(1X0s "same injury" requirement.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(1)(a) — 9 cases
J.E. JOHNS & ASSOCS. VS. LINDBERG (2020)
“To address these arguments, we first consider NRS 17.245(1X0s "same injury" requirement.”
MOTOR COACH INDUS., INC. VS. KHIABANI (2021)
“Respondents argue that Nevada's offset statute, NRS 17.245, does not apply to strictly liable defendants like MCI because they are not entitled to contribution.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(1)(b) — 7 cases
Otak Nevada, Llc v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013)
“Otak filed in the district court a motion for approval of good-faith settlement based on NRS 17.245. The district court denied the motion because it found that a $45,000 settlement was not a fair settlement amount for the plaintiffs, and thus, was not in good faith.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(1Xa) — 1 case
J.E. JOHNS & ASSOCS. VS. LINDBERG (2020)
“To address these arguments, we first consider NRS 17.245(1X0s "same injury" requirement.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(2) — 3 cases
Otak Nevada, Llc v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013)
“Otak filed in the district court a motion for approval of good-faith settlement based on NRS 17.245. The district court denied the motion because it found that a $45,000 settlement was not a fair settlement amount for the plaintiffs, and thus, was not in good faith.”
State v. Eaton (1985)
“Pursuant to NRS 17.245, 3 the district court reduced the jury award by $29,000.”
Nelson v. Bennett (1987)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(a)(1) — 1 case
J.E. JOHNS & ASSOCS. VS. LINDBERG (2020)
“To address these arguments, we first consider NRS 17.245(1X0s "same injury" requirement.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(l)(a) — 3 cases
The Doctors Co. v. Vincent (2004)
“Third, any joint tort-feasor in a multi-defendant tort action may obtain protection from claims of contribution and implied indemnity by settling with the tort claimant in good faith under NRS 17.245. Fourth, the district court’s discretion in determining the good or bad faith…”
Western Technologies, Inc. v. All-American Golf Center, Inc. (2006)
“Subsequently, the district court granted the settling parties’ motion for a determination of a good-faith settlement under NRS 17.245. The parties did not, however, request the district court to allocate the settlement amount among the various constructional defects.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.245(l)(b) — 1 case
Otak Nevada, Llc v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013)
“Otak filed in the district court a motion for approval of good-faith settlement based on NRS 17.245. The district court denied the motion because it found that a $45,000 settlement was not a fair settlement amount for the plaintiffs, and thus, was not in good faith.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.