NRS
40.655 Limitation on recovery.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 40.650, in a claim governed by NRS 40.600 to 40.695, inclusive, the claimant may recover
only the following damages to the extent proximately caused by a constructional
defect:
(a) The reasonable cost of any repairs already
made that were necessary and of any repairs yet to be made that are necessary
to cure any constructional defect that the contractor failed to cure and the
reasonable expenses of temporary housing reasonably necessary during the
repair;
(b) The reduction in market value of the
residence or accessory structure, if any, to the extent the reduction is
because of structural failure;
(c) The loss of the use of all or any part of the
residence;
(d) The reasonable value of any other property
damaged by the constructional defect;
(e) Any additional costs reasonably incurred by
the claimant, including, but not limited to, any costs and fees incurred for
the retention of experts to:
(1) Ascertain the nature and extent of the
constructional defects;
(2) Evaluate appropriate corrective
measures to estimate the value of loss of use; and
(3) Estimate the value of loss of use, the
cost of temporary housing and the reduction of market value of the residence;
and
(f) Any interest provided by statute.
2. If a contractor complies with the
provisions of NRS 40.600 to 40.695, inclusive, the claimant may not
recover from the contractor, as a result of the constructional defect, any
damages other than damages authorized pursuant to NRS 40.600 to 40.695, inclusive.
3. This section must not be construed as
impairing any contractual rights between a contractor and a subcontractor,
supplier or design professional.
4. As used in this section, “structural
failure” means physical damage to the load-bearing portion of a residence or
appurtenance caused by a failure of the load-bearing portion of the residence
or appurtenance.
(Added to NRS by 1995,
2541; A 1997,
2720; 2003,
2045; 2015,
16; 2019,
2261)
Notes of Decisions
Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 132 P.3d 1022 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 24× “The Albioses filed a post-trial motion for attorney fees and costs under NRS 40.655. Horizon opposed the motion, arguing that, under NRCP 68 and NRS 17.”
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 10× “The homeowners sought attorney fees pursuant to NRS 40.655, and Beazer Homes objected, claiming that the subject of attorney fees should have been presented to the jury and the district court should permit discovery on the calculation of the fees.”
ANSE, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 192 P.3d 738 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 5× “615, then the defect is not the type of “constructional defect” that entitles the constructional defect claimant to the remedies set forth in NRS 40.655. 17 Recently, in Westpark, we explained that the term “new residence,” as used in Nevada’s residential constructional defect…”
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 168 P.3d 731 (Nev. 2007).
“NRS 40.655(f) provides that claimants may recover the reasonable costs they incur in the preparation of their pre-litigation notice if the defects alleged are verified.”
DR Horton, Inc. v. Green, 96 P.3d 1159 (Nev. 2004).
“In addition to the right to a jury trial, under NRS 40.655(1)(a), a construction defect claimant may recover attorney fees or other damages proximately caused by the construction defect controversy.”
Garmong v. Rogney & Sons Constr. (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 3× “650(4) (2003) permits an offer of judgment to be made in a construction defect action if the offer "includes all damages to which the claimant is entitled pursuant to NRS 40.655." NRS 40.655(1) (2003), in turn, permits recovery of certain damages, including "[t]he reasonable…”
Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2014 NV 9 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “However, "NRS 40.655 does not preclude application of the penalty provisions of NRCP 68 and NRS 17.”
Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2014 NV 9 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “to the prevailing party against any adverse party against whom judgment is rendered.”
Energetic Lath & Plaster, Inc. v. Cimini (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 2× “' As for attorney fees, the district court had authority to award the Ciminis pursuant to NRS 40.655. See Albios v. Horizon Cmtys., Inc.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.655(1) — 7 cases
Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 132 P.3d 1022 (Nev. 2006).
“The Albioses filed a post-trial motion for attorney fees and costs under NRS 40.655. Horizon opposed the motion, arguing that, under NRCP 68 and NRS 17.”
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530 (Nev. 2005).
“The homeowners sought attorney fees pursuant to NRS 40.655, and Beazer Homes objected, claiming that the subject of attorney fees should have been presented to the jury and the district court should permit discovery on the calculation of the fees.”
ANSE, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 192 P.3d 738 (Nev. 2008).
“615, then the defect is not the type of “constructional defect” that entitles the constructional defect claimant to the remedies set forth in NRS 40.655. 17 Recently, in Westpark, we explained that the term “new residence,” as used in Nevada’s residential constructional defect…”
Garmong v. Rogney & Sons Constr. (Nev. 2016).
“650(4) (2003) permits an offer of judgment to be made in a construction defect action if the offer "includes all damages to which the claimant is entitled pursuant to NRS 40.655." NRS 40.655(1) (2003), in turn, permits recovery of certain damages, including "[t]he reasonable…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.655(1)(a) — 3 cases
DR Horton, Inc. v. Green, 96 P.3d 1159 (Nev. 2004).
“In addition to the right to a jury trial, under NRS 40.655(1)(a), a construction defect claimant may recover attorney fees or other damages proximately caused by the construction defect controversy.”
Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2014 NV 9 (Nev. 2014).
“However, "NRS 40.655 does not preclude application of the penalty provisions of NRCP 68 and NRS 17.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.655(1)(b) — 1 case
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530 (Nev. 2005).
“The homeowners sought attorney fees pursuant to NRS 40.655, and Beazer Homes objected, claiming that the subject of attorney fees should have been presented to the jury and the district court should permit discovery on the calculation of the fees.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.655(2) — 2 cases
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530 (Nev. 2005).
“The homeowners sought attorney fees pursuant to NRS 40.655, and Beazer Homes objected, claiming that the subject of attorney fees should have been presented to the jury and the district court should permit discovery on the calculation of the fees.”
Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 132 P.3d 1022 (Nev. 2006).
“The Albioses filed a post-trial motion for attorney fees and costs under NRS 40.655. Horizon opposed the motion, arguing that, under NRCP 68 and NRS 17.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.655(f) — 2 cases
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 168 P.3d 731 (Nev. 2007).
“NRS 40.655(f) provides that claimants may recover the reasonable costs they incur in the preparation of their pre-litigation notice if the defects alleged are verified.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.655(l)(a) — 1 case
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530 (Nev. 2005).
“The homeowners sought attorney fees pursuant to NRS 40.655, and Beazer Homes objected, claiming that the subject of attorney fees should have been presented to the jury and the district court should permit discovery on the calculation of the fees.”
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.