Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 40 - ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARTICULAR CASES CONCERNING PROPERTY
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.6884 (2026)

Attorney required to consult expert; required affidavit of attorney; required report of expert

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 40.6884  Attorney required to consult expert; required affidavit of attorney; required report of expert.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, in an action governed by NRS 40.600 to 40.695, inclusive, that is commenced against a design professional or a person primarily engaged in the practice of professional engineering, land surveying, architecture or landscape architecture, including, without limitation, an action for professional negligence, the attorney for the complainant shall file an affidavit with the court concurrently with the service of the first pleading in the action stating that the attorney:

      (a) Has reviewed the facts of the case;

      (b) Has consulted with an expert;

      (c) Reasonably believes the expert who was consulted is knowledgeable in the relevant discipline involved in the action; and

      (d) Has concluded on the basis of the attorney’s review and the consultation with the expert that the action has a reasonable basis in law and fact.

      2.  The attorney for the complainant may file the affidavit required pursuant to subsection 1 at a later time if the attorney could not consult with an expert and prepare the affidavit before filing the action without causing the action to be impaired or barred by the statute of limitations or repose, or other limitations prescribed by law. If the attorney must submit the affidavit late, the attorney shall file an affidavit concurrently with the service of the first pleading in the action stating the attorney’s reason for failing to comply with subsection 1 and the attorney shall consult with an expert and file the affidavit required pursuant to subsection 1 not later than 45 days after filing the action.

      3.  In addition to the statement included in the affidavit pursuant to subsection 1, a report must be attached to the affidavit. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, the report must be prepared by the expert consulted by the attorney and include, without limitation:

      (a) The resume of the expert;

      (b) A statement that the expert is experienced in each discipline which is the subject of the report;

      (c) A copy of each nonprivileged document reviewed by the expert in preparing the expert’s report, including, without limitation, each record, report and related document that the expert has determined is relevant to the allegations of negligent conduct that are the basis for the action;

      (d) The conclusions of the expert and the basis for the conclusions; and

      (e) A statement that the expert has concluded that there is a reasonable basis for filing the action.

      4.  In an action brought by a claimant in which an affidavit is required to be filed pursuant to subsection 1:

      (a) The report required pursuant to subsection 3 is not required to include the information set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection 3 if the claimant or the claimant’s attorney files an affidavit, at the time that the affidavit is filed pursuant to subsection 1, stating that the claimant or the claimant’s attorney made reasonable efforts to obtain the nonprivileged documents described in paragraph (c) of subsection 3, but was unable to obtain such documents before filing the action;

      (b) The claimant or the claimant’s attorney shall amend the report required pursuant to subsection 3 to include any documents and information required pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection 3 as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the document or information; and

      (c) The court may dismiss the action if the claimant and the claimant’s attorney fail to comply with the requirements of paragraph (b).

      5.  An expert consulted by an attorney to prepare an affidavit pursuant to this section must not be a party to the action.

      6.  As used in this section, “expert” means a person who is licensed in a state to engage in the practice of professional engineering, land surveying, architecture or landscape architecture.

      (Added to NRS by 2001 Special Session, 66)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2022 · leading case: Epco Holdings, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 352 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Epco Holdings, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 352 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “35(a)-(b) (West 2004) (requiring the plaintiff’s attorney to file and serve, on or before the date of service of the complaint, either the certificate of merit or a certificate stating that the attorney was unable to obtain consultation of a licensed professional because of the…”
1059 Lakeshore Boulevard LLC v. Pulver, No. 3:21-cv-00097 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2021). · cites it 14× “) Defendant argues the FAC is void ab initio because 19 Plaintiff failed to attach a certificate of merit pursuant to NRS § 40.6884 and therefore 20 must be dismissed.”
Pulver v. Kane, 643 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 3× “40-1, 40-2) as meeting the requirements 15 of NRS § 40.6884, but the Court dismisses Pulver’s sixth claim for relief because it does 16 not constitute a valid cause of action.”
Lafrieda v. Black Eagle Consulting, No. 62284 (Nev. July 30, 2014). · cites it 4× “Alternatively, the LaFriedas argue that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on their negligent misrepresentation claim because this claim was not subject to the requirements of NRS 40.6884. NRS 40.6884 applies to all claims that arise "as the result of a…”
Lafrieda v. Gilbert C/W 74565/74942, No. 73888 (Nev. Feb. 26, 2019). “The claim against Summit was later dismissed for failure to attach a certificate of merit to the complaint as required by NRS 40.6884. After the attorney-client relationship between the LaFriedas and Gilbert began to deteriorate, Gilbert moved to withdraw.”
Lafrieda v. Gilbert C/W 74565/74942, No. 73888 (Nev. Feb. 26, 2019). “The claim against Summit was later dismissed for failure to attach a certificate of merit to the complaint as required by NRS 40.6884. After the attorney-client relationship between the LaFriedas and Gilbert began to deteriorate, Gilbert moved to withdraw.”
Lafrieda v. Gilbert C/W 74565/74942, No. 73888 (Nev. Feb. 26, 2019). “The claim against Summit was later dismissed for failure to attach a certificate of merit to the complaint as required by NRS 40.6884. After the attorney-client relationship between the LaFriedas and Gilbert began to deteriorate, Gilbert moved to withdraw.”
Mv&p Int'l., Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Luna Di Lusso Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc.), No. 68519 (Nev. Sept. 11, 2015). “See NRS 40.6884(1). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.6884(1): 2 cases
Lafrieda v. Black Eagle Consulting, No. 62284 (Nev. July 30, 2014). “Alternatively, the LaFriedas argue that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on their negligent misrepresentation claim because this claim was not subject to the requirements of NRS 40.6884. NRS 40.6884 applies to all claims that arise "as the result of a…”
Mv&p Int'l., Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Luna Di Lusso Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc.), No. 68519 (Nev. Sept. 11, 2015). “See NRS 40.6884(1). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.6884(2): 2 cases
Epco Holdings, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 352 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “35(a)-(b) (West 2004) (requiring the plaintiff’s attorney to file and serve, on or before the date of service of the complaint, either the certificate of merit or a certificate stating that the attorney was unable to obtain consultation of a licensed professional because of the…”
1059 Lakeshore Boulevard LLC v. Pulver, No. 3:21-cv-00097 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2021). “) Defendant argues the FAC is void ab initio because 19 Plaintiff failed to attach a certificate of merit pursuant to NRS § 40.6884 and therefore 20 must be dismissed.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.6884(3): 1 case
Lafrieda v. Black Eagle Consulting, No. 62284 (Nev. July 30, 2014). “Alternatively, the LaFriedas argue that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on their negligent misrepresentation claim because this claim was not subject to the requirements of NRS 40.6884. NRS 40.6884 applies to all claims that arise "as the result of a…”
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.