Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation only when substantial evidence supports oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.

First Interstate Bank v. Jafbros Auto Body, Inc. · filed 1990-02-20(1)

An award of punitive damages may not stand where the record lacks substantial evidence to support the required finding of “oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” ... In the absence of substantial evidence of oppression, fraud or malice the jury’s punitive damages award cannot stand.

Section 42.005 requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud, oppression, or malice to award punitive damages; tort liability alone is insufficient.

Wichinsky v. Mosa · filed 1993-02-23

Punitive damages are authorized by statute. NRS 42.005 provides for an award of punitive damages upon a showing of fraud, oppression or malice by clear and convincing evidence. Tort liability alone is insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages when the defendant has acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

Republic Insurance v. Hires · filed 1991-05-02

NRS 42.005 authorizes an award of punitive damages where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. If we read the record in the light most favorable to Hires and least favorable to Republic, we conclude evidence indicates Republic was guilty of oppressive conduct.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages only when malice, fraud, or oppression is shown by clear and convincing evidence.

Chowdhry v. NLVH, INC. · filed 1993-05-07

Punitive damages are recoverable only upon a showing of malice, fraud or oppression, by clear and convincing evidence. NRS 42.005. The district court determined, based upon the evidence presented in Chowdhry’s case in chief, that the respondents acted in the interest of their patients and not out of malice towards Chowdhry. We agree. Chowdhry failed to establish a prima facie case for punitive damages. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed this claim under NRCP 41(b).

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages in a tort action when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice, after compensatory damages are awarded.

Mackintosh v. California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1997-03-27(1)

NRS 42.005(1) establishes the circumstances under which punitive damages are available: [I]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages for a tort claim, including breach of fiduciary duty, when clear and convincing evidence establishes oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Clark v. Lubritz · filed 1997-09-05

Under NRS 42.005, punitive damages may be awarded in an action “not arising from contract,” where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” ... Therefore, we conclude that the breach of fiduciary duty arising from the partnership agreement is a separate tort upon which punitive damages may be based. ... We conclude that the foregoing is sufficient evidence upon which to base a finding of express malice — that the appellants acted with the intent to injure Lubritz. ... Because there is ample evidence to support a punitive damage judgment based on malice, we do not consider it necessary to discuss fraud or oppression. We therefore affirm the punitive damage award.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages in an action for a noncontractual obligation when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven, and the court held the evidence did not establish oppression here.

Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car · filed 1998-01-22(1)

NRS 42.005 provides: ... 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 42.007, in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven that defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. ... We conclude that the district court could not have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Agency subjected the Maduikes to “cruel and unjust hardship with conscious disregard of the rights of the person.” ... Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly granted the motion for involuntary dismissal of the Maduikes’ punitive damage claim.

Section 42.005 caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages when those damages are at least $100,000, and treats the jury’s actual-damages award—not the net amount after equitable offsets—as the relevant award.

Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. · filed 2000-08-18(1), (1)(a)

NRS 42.005(l)(a) limits the amount of punitive damages to three times the compensatory damages in instances where such damages are equal to or exceed $100,000.00. ... Second, we conclude that the term “award” in NRS 42.005 refers to an award of actual damages by the jury, not the net award calculated after equitable offsets.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Bongiovi v. Sullivan · filed 2006-07-13(1)

Instead, punitive damages may be awarded when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is “guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.”

Section 42.005(1) permits exemplary or punitive damages only for a breach of an obligation not arising from contract.

Garcia v. Dawahare · filed 2008-03-26(1)

Additionally, according to Nevada’s exemplary and punitive damages statute, NRS § 42.005(1), such damages can be awarded only for “the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” Here. Plaintiffs attempt for punitive damages arise from her breach of contract claim, and therefore cannot stand under NRS § 42.005(1). Rather, a claim for punitive damages must be based upon a separate tort.

Section 42.005 authorizes punitive damages for malice, limits their amount in specified circumstances, and requires bifurcation of punitive-damages liability from the amount assessment.

Wyeth v. Rowatt · filed 2010-11-24(1), (1)(a), (3)

A plaintiff may recover punitive damages when evidence demonstrates that the defendant has acted with ‘ ‘malice, express or implied.” NRS 42.005(1). Regarding the ratio of the punitive damages awarded to the compensatory damages awards, the remitted punitive damages awards here are less than three times the compensatory awards. This is well within the accepted ratios. We reject Wyeth’s arguments and conclude that the reduced punitive damages awards are well within NRS 42.005’s statutory parameters. By statute, Nevada requires that the liability determination for punitive damages against a defendant be bifurcated from the assessment of the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be awarded.

Subsection (1) permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with malice, including despicable conduct undertaken with conscious disregard of others’ rights or safety.

SERCU v. Laboratory Corporation of America · filed 2011-03-07(1)

Malice is conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others. See NRS § 42.005(1). ... There are sufficient facts for a reasonable juror to infer that LabCorp knowingly violated its own quality control policies for blood plasma specimens, and thereby consciously disregarded Karen’s safety, when it failed to place her specimens on ice. ... Accordingly, the court shall deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this regard.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages for a breach of a noncontractual obligation only when oppression, fraud, or malice is proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Phillips v. Clark County School District · filed 2012-09-30(1)

Nevada law authorizes an award of punitive damages “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where ... the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice____” NRS 42.005(1). Because Plaintiffs second cause of action, pursuant to the Nevada Unfair Claims Practices Act, survives this Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages will survive only if Plaintiff can provide sufficient evidence to establish that he will be able to prove at trial, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant is “guilty of oppression, fraud or malice....” NRS 42.005(1); ... To establish that Defendant is guilty of “oppression,” Plaintiff must show that Defendant acted with “a conscious disregard for the rights of others which constituted an act of subjecting [P]lain-tiff[ ] to cruel and unjust hardship.” Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 104 Nev. 587, 763 P.2d 673, 675 (1988) (citations omitted). “[M]alice” requires a showing of “hatred and ill-will” or of Defendant’s motive to “vex, harass, annoy, or injure.” Craigo v. Circus-Circus Enter., 106 Nev. 1, 786 P.2d 22, 23 (1990). ... Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence showing that he may be able to prove at trial, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is entitled to punitive damages.

Section 42.005 requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to demonstrate that the defendant engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud.

Racine v. PHW Las Vegas, LLC · filed 2014-09-02

Under NRS 42.005, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant has engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud, in order to seek punitive damages.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages only when clear and convincing evidence proves oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice, for purposes of punishment or example.

Hackler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 2016-09-26

In Nevada, punitive damages are available only where “it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied,” and is available in such circumstances “for the sake of example and by way of punishing defendant.” NRS § 42.005 (2009). ... Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Hackler, the Court finds that a reasonable juror could conclude that State Farm acted with implied malice.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages only in addition to compensatory damages, so a party without a right to compensatory damages is not entitled to punitive damages.

Racine v. Phw Las Vegas, LLC · filed 2016-10-19(1)

Having failed to establish a right to compensatory damages, Racine was not entitled to punitive damages. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1) (permitting punitive damages “in addition to the compensatory damages”).

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice to succeed on a punitive-damages claim; at the discovery stage, some factual basis for such a claim suffices to obtain the defendant's personal financial records.

CAIN VS. PRICE · filed 2018-04-12(1)

To succeed on a punitive damage claim in this contractual context, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of "oppression, fraud or malice." NRS 42.005(1). ... While that evidence might not amount to "clear and convincing" evidence that Price and Shackelford committed "oppression, fraud, or malice," NRS 42.005(1), such alleged misuse of funds contrary to the JVA constitutes "some factual basis" for those claims such that discovery was proper.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages in a tort action when the defendant's oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Claridge v. I-Flow Corporation · filed 2019-08-30

Such damages are available “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied . . . .” NRS 42.005.

Section 42.005(1) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to show that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

National Jewish Democratic Council v. Adelson · filed 2019-09-30(1)

In order to make out a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must show that Adelson acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1).

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages in an action for a noncontractual obligation when oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

DelVecchia v. Frontier Airlines · filed 2020-03-24

Such damages are available “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied....” NRS 42.005. ... Based solely on the motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint, Defendants have not satisfied the Court that Plaintiffs are categorically foreclosed from recovering punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint adequately marshals facts to support an award of punitive damages. Therefore, dismissal of Plaintiff's request for punitive damages would be premature. ... Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

Section 42.005(1) allows punitive damages only when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

Brooks v. Sanofi S.A. · filed 2020-04-13(1)

As relevant in this case, a plaintiff can recover punitive damages under Nevada law only by proving with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.005(1). Here, plaintiff alleges several causes of action that sound in fraud. (See ECF No. 1-1). Thus, in light of NRS 42.005, the court will consider punitive damages for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence, while the trier of fact decides whether to award them and their amount after the court determines whether the evidence supports a punitive-damages instruction.

Durai v. Sun · filed 2020-04-14

Under Nevada law, “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005. “Whether punitive damages are appropriate and what amount is appropriate are questions reserved for the trier of fact, although the court has the responsibility to determine whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice to support a punitive damages instruction.” Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005). Durai has offered sufficient evidence of fraud as a matter of law, but I may not enter summary judgment on his punitive damages request because whether punitive damages are appropriate and what amount is appropriate is reserved for the trier of fact. So I deny Durai’s motion insofar as he requests punitive damages without prejudice to a motion for default judgment requesting punitive damages.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with fraud, oppression, or express or implied malice.

Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp · filed 2020-09-17

Nevada law permits the recovery of punitive damages where the plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence the defendant acted with fraud, oppression, or malice—express or implied. See NRS § 42.005. ... A material factual dispute as to whether Tripp acted with malice in taking information without authorization and sharing it with Lopez precludes summary judgment on Tesla’s punitive damages claim.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages on clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and caps the award at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages are $100,000 or more, or $300,000 otherwise.

Spencer v. Stafford · filed 2021-02-26

Under NRS 42.005, a Plaintiff may recover punitive damages “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” An award of exemplary or punitive damages made pursuant this section may not exceed “(a) three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more; or (b) three hundred thousand dollars if the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff is less than $100,000.” Id.

Subsection (1)(a) permits punitive damages for fraud when fraud is proven by clear and convincing evidence; no additional aggravating factor is required.

NEVADA STATE EDUC. ASS'N VS. CLARK CTY. EDUC. ASS'N · filed 2021-03-04(1)(a)

The district coures order incorrectly suggests that the teachers would have had to prove additional facts supporting punitive damages beyond those required to prove fraud. NRS 42.005(1) (permitting punitive damages "where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice") (emphasis added); see S.J. Amoroso Constr. Co. v. Lazovich & Lazovich, 107 Nev. 294, 297, 810 P.2d 775, 777 (1991) (explaining that no "qualifying adjective like "aggravator is necessary to support punitive damages for fraud).

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages only when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

InjuryLoans.com, LLC v. Buenrostro · filed 2021-03-26(1)

In Nevada, punitive damages may only be awarded “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS 42.005(1). ... Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that Citi engaged in tortious conduct, but not conduct rising to the level of oppression, fraud, or malice. (See FAC ¶¶ 176–183). Each standard requires some degree of intentional or willful conduct, but Plaintiffs do not allege that Citi knew of Buenrostro’s scheme and assented to his intent as a co-conspirator. (Id.). Accordingly, given that Plaintiffs have not pleaded a factual basis in support of punitive damages, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ request for the relief without prejudice.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when the defendant is proven by clear and convincing evidence to be guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.

Muderis v. Hernandez · filed 2022-01-05(1)

“[P]unitive damages may be awarded when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.’” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 138 P.3d 433, 450-51 (Nev. 2006) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1)). ... The defendants acted with malice when publishing the Defamatory Statements. They knew the Defamatory Statements were false, yet they published them on the internet to harm the plaintiffs’ reputation and to bolster the financial gain for the defendants and the plaintiffs’ competitors. The defendants continued to publish the Defamatory Statements even after receiving cease-and-desist letters. An award of punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 is appropriate to punish and deter the defendants’ conduct.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Hix v. Biomet Inc · filed 2022-03-29

The plaintiff must demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied” in order to recover. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005 (2021).

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages for a noncontract claim when compensatory damages are awarded and clear and convincing evidence proves oppression, fraud, or malice; it requires bifurcation of liability and amount and caps awards at three times compensatory damages when those damages are $100,000 or more.

PLOT USA, INC. v. Hyakawa · filed 2022-07-28(1), (3)

Under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 42.005, a defendant may be assessed “exemplary and punitive damages” if the plaintiff (1) succeeds on a cause of action for “breach of an obligation not arising from contract,” (2) is awarded compensatory damages for the same, and ... (3) proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is “guilty of oppression, fraud[,] or malice, express or implied.” ... NRS 42.005(3) “requires that the liability determination for punitive damages against a defendant be bifurcated from the assessment of the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be awarded.” ... The statute caps the punitive-damage award at “[t]hree times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more.”

Section 42.005(1) authorizes punitive damages for breach of a noncontractual obligation when the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Wunderlich v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-10-05(1)

Nevada authorizes an award of punitive damages “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract,12 where ... the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS § 42.005(1). ... Here, the record lacks sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find that Wunderlich would be entitled to punitive damages. The record simply shows that State Farm disputed the amount of UIM coverage to provide Wunderlich. While there remain questions regarding the basis for that dispute, that goes to the question of bad faith or the UCPA, but it is insufficient to show oppression, fraud or malice. For that reason, I grant State Farm summary judgment as to Wunderlich’s prayer for punitive damages.

Section 42.005 requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice before punitive damages may be awarded against an insurer for bad faith.

Pintar v. CSAA General Insurance Company · filed 2023-10-16

CSAA is also entitled to summary judgment on the Pintars’ prayer for punitive damages. In Nevada, a district court “has discretion to determine whether the defendant’s conduct merits punitive damages as a matter of law.” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 138 P.3d 433, 451 (Nev. 2006). An insurer can be held to pay punitive damages for a bad faith claim if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the insurer has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Hackler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 210 F.Supp.3d 1250, 1258 (D. Nev. 2016) (citing NRS § 42.005). Clear and convincing evidence is defined as “evidence establishing every factual element to be highly probable.” In re Discipline of Drakulich, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (Nev. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Pintars have failed to show clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. Rather, the evidence shows a genuine dispute over what should be covered, and the costs related to coverage. As a result, I grant CSAA’s motion for summary judgment on the Pintars’ prayer for punitive damages.

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice to support punitive damages, and subsection (5) incorporates the common-law definitions of those terms in bad-faith insurance suits.

Wood v. Nautilus Insurance Company · filed 2023-12-18(1), (5)

To prevail on a claim for punitive damages, an insured must prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that the insurer “has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS § 42.005(1); Potter, 912 P.2d at 273. ... “The common law definitions of oppression, fraud, and malice apply in bad faith [insurance] suits.” Polymer Plastics Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 389 F. App’x 703, 707 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing NRS § 42.005(5)). ... The Court finds that Nautilus’s bad faith denial of the Third and Fourth Re-Tenders constitutes “mere recklessness” and does not rise to the level of oppression, fraud, or malice to warrant punitive damages.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Bielicki v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2024-06-24(1)

Nevada law permits punitive damages “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1) (emphasis added); see also Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Winecup Ranch, LLC, 2020 WL 7125918, at *24 (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2020). “’Malice, express or implied’ means conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.001(3). USAA asks the court to dismiss plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages set forth in the bad faith and unfair practices claims. But by arguing that the court should not find plaintiffs entitled to punitive damages—a remedy—at this stage of the litigation is akin to asking the court to make factual findings. That would be improper at this time.5 Accordingly, USAA’s motion to dismiss the punitive damages remedy is denied without prejudice. See Cardinale v. La Petite Acad., Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1162 (D. Nev. 2002).

Section 42.005 authorizes punitive damages upon clear-and-convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and alleged fraud may support a punitive-damages claim at the pleading stage.

DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc. · filed 2024-09-09

Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to allege facts supporting an award of punitive damages. (ECF No. 30 at 23-24.) Under Nevada law, punitive damages are available “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied . . .” NRS 42.005. At the motion to dismiss stage, Plaintiff only need state the “bare minimum” of facts that could plausibly give rise to punitive damages. Lewenz v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 220-CV-01994-KJD-EJY, 2021 WL 4341940, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 22, 2021). Plaintiff has at the least alleged several factual instances of fraud in their complaint. Furthermore, dismissal of a request for punitive damages would be premature at the motion to dismiss stage. See AC Media Grp., LLC v. Sprocket Media, Inc., No. 216-CV-02145-APG-GWF, 2017 WL 1458198, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2017). Thus, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is denied.

Section 42.005(1) allows punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Yoakum · filed 2026-01-23(1)

“[P]unitive damages may be awarded when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.’” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 138 P.3d 433, 450-51 (Nev. 2006) (quoting NRS § 42.005(1)). “‘Malice, express or implied’ means conduct which is intended to injure a person, or despicable conduct which is engaged in with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” ... Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, a reasonable jury may find that Petefish acted with malice or conscious disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights and safety. I therefore deny the motions for summary judgment as to punitive damages against Petefish.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when a defendant's conscious disregard for the safety of others constitutes implied malice.

Coughlin v. Tailhook Association · filed 1997-05-02(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err when it allowed Coughlin's punitive damages claim to proceed to the jury on the theory that the appellants showed a "conscious disregard for the safety of others" amount to implied malice.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages for an obligation not arising from contract when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice.

USF Insurance v. Smith's Food & Drug Center · filed 2013-02-04(1)

NRS § 42.005(1) provides for punitive damages “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied ...”

Subsection (1) permits punitive damages only when clear and convincing evidence proves oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Ramparts, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company · filed 2013-02-22(1)

The district court did not err in granting AIC’s request for judgment as a matter of law on Luxor’s claims for punitive damages. Under Nevada law, punitive damages may be awarded “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied . . . .” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1). Because Luxor did not adduce evidence supporting such a finding, the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law with respect to punitive damages.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation when clear and convincing evidence establishes oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Guaranty National Insurance v. Potter · filed 1996-02-29(1)

NRS 42.005 provides that punitive damages may be awarded ... the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.”

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages when the defendant's conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Powers v. United Services Automobile Ass'n · filed 1998-07-16

We conclude that the evidence the jury could have believed supported a finding that USAA had been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied. ... In this case, we conclude that punitive damages were indeed warranted.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas · filed 2023-03-24(1)

In Nevada, courts can award punitive damages when a plaintiff proves “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS § 42.005(1).

Section 42.005(1) authorizes exemplary and punitive damages in tort claims when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.

Lichtenstein, III v. Bellagio, LLC, d/b/a Bellagio Hotel and Casino · filed 2023-10-10(1)

Punitive damages can factor into the amount in controversy if they are available under state law, ... NRS 42.005 authorizes an award of “exemplary and punitive damages” for tort claims in Nevada when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is “guilty of oppression, fraud[,] or malice, express or implied.”

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages for a noncontract obligation when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice, in addition to compensatory damages.

Beauregard v. Sampson · filed 2024-01-31(1)

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 42.007, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages when the defendant’s conduct is oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious, including conscious disregard of another person’s rights and the probable harmful consequences of a wrongful act.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hudson · filed 2024-03-31(1)

In order to be awarded punitive damages, the Defendant must show that the defendant’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. NRS § 42.005.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.

Bowman v. LV Metropolitan Police Dept. · filed 2024-08-19(1)

A plaintiff may receive punitive damages if he or she proves “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied[.]” NRS § 42.005(1).

Section 42.005(1) authorizes punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation when the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice, proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-01-30(1)

Under Nevada law, punitive damages are only awarded “when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.’” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 138 P.3d 433, 450 (Nev. 2006). ... Nevada authorizes an award of punitive damages “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where . . . the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1).

Section 42.005 excludes punitive damages for contract claims but permits them for tort-like intentional misrepresentation, subject to an award of up to three times compensatory damages.

Hybrid International, LLC v. Scotia International of Nevada · filed 2023-03-20(1), (1)(a)

Punitive damages for defendants’ intentional misrepresentation in the amount of $500,000 are appropriate. Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 42.0051 permits an award of up to three times any awarded compensatory damages. NRS 42.005 excludes punitive damages in actions arising from contract claims, but fraud-like claims, such as intentional misrepresentation, sound in tort rather than contract. ... Thus, punitive damages are awarded against all defendants for intentional misrepresentation.

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice; failure to provide that evidence defeats a punitive-damages claim.

Molina v. State Farm Mutual Autombile Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-23(1)

Further, Plaintiff has failed to adduce any “clear and convincing evidence” of oppression, fraud malice. See NRS § 42.005. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages.

Subsection (1) authorizes punitive damages for breach of a noncontractual obligation when the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance · filed 1994-09-01(1)

However, bad faith is not a prerequisite for punitive damages. Nevada law authorizes an award of punitive damages “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where ... the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS 42.005(1). ... At any rate the Court need not decide such a hypothetical situation. For the Court finds that no facts exist here to support an award of punitive damages under NRS 42.005.

Subsection (1) authorizes punitive damages only for breach of a noncontractual obligation, so an ordinary breach-of-contract action does not support punitive damages.

Great American Insurance v. General Builders, Inc. · filed 1997-03-06(1)

Great American contends that this is an ordinary breach of contract case and that the award of punitive damages was therefore improper. See NRS 42.005(1). We agree.

Section 42.005 authorizes punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and limits the award to three times compensatory damages when those damages are $100,000 or more.

Shaw v. Citimortgage, Inc. · filed 2016-08-17(1), (a)

In order to be eligible for an award of punitive damages, Shaw must prove by clear and convincing evidence that CMI engaged in oppression, fraud, or malice. See NRS § 42.005(1). ... Punitive damages are not availablé in contract-based claims. See NRS § 42.005(1) (stating that punitive damages are available in any action “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract”). Thus, the only claim for which punitive damages could be awarded in this action is Shaw’s claim for tortious breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. ... In Nevada, an award of punitive damages is limited to “[tjhree times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more.” NRS § 42.005(a). Here, the compensatory damages under Shaw’s tortious breach of the implied covenants claim is $239,850.00 and the -court finds that an appropriate amount of punitive damages for the conduct outlined above is the statutory limit. Thus, trebling this amount, the court shall enter judgment in the amount of $719,550.00 in favor of Shaw and against CMI for punitive damages.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages against an employer for an agent’s acts only if the principal or a managerial agent authorized the act and its manner, recklessly employed or retained an unfit agent, employed the agent in a managerial capacity acting within the scope of employment, or ratified or approved the act.

Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. v. Bellegarde · filed 1998-05-28

Punitive damages under NRS 42.005 may be awarded when “it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” ... We now exclusively embrace the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 909 (1977) approach with regard to an employer’s liability for punitive damages for the acts or omissions of its agents: ... Punitive damages can properly be awarded against a master or other principal because of an act by an agent if, but only if, ... (a) the principal or a managerial agent authorized the doing and the manner of the act, or ... (b) the agent was unfit and the principal or a managerial agent was reckless in employing or retaining him, or ... (c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment, or ... (d) the principal or a managerial agent of the principal ratified or approved the act.

Section 42.005 authorizes punitive damages for noncontractual obligations upon clear-and-convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice; caps awards at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages exceed $100,000 and at $300,000 otherwise, but exempts insurers acting in bad faith regarding insurance coverage from those caps.

Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis · filed 1999-02-19(1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(b)

NRS 42.005 provides that punitive damages may be awarded “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.’ ’ When a prevailing plaintiff’s compensatory damages exceeds $100,000.00, punitive damages are capped by statute to three times the amount of the compensatory damages. See NRS 42.005(l)(a). When the plaintiff recovers less than $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, punitive damages must be limited to a maximum of $300,000.00. See NRS 42.005(b). Significantly, the foregoing statutory caps on punitive damages do not apply to “[a]n insurer who acts in bad faith regarding its obligations to provide insurance coverage.” NRS 42.005(2)(b).

Section 42.005(2)(b) does not impose a statutory cap on punitive damages in insurance bad-faith cases.

Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Insurance · filed 2008-11-17(2)(b)

The legislature specifically chose not to impose statutory caps on punitive damages for insurance bad faith. NRS 42.005(2)(b); NRS 42.007(2).

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages, and subsection (5) applies the common-law definitions of those terms to insurer bad-faith actions.

Wallace v. U.S.A.A. Life General Agency, Inc. · filed 2012-03-29(1), (5)

Punitive damages are available where “it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.” NRS § 42.005(1); see Desert Palace, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 810235, *5 (D.Nev.2011). In actions “brought against an insurer who acts in bad faith regarding its obligations to provide insurance coverage,” the common law definitions of oppression, fraud and malice apply. NRS § 42.005(5). “Oppression occurs when the plaintiff is subjected to ‘cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights.’ ” Desert Palace, *5 (quoting Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 105 Nev. 237, 774 P.2d 1003, 1012 (1989)). “Malice refers to conduct which is intended to injure a person or conduct with a conscious or deliberate disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Id. (citing Granite Constr. Co. v. Rhyne, 107 Nev. 651, 817 P.2d 711, 713 (1991)). Fraud is not alleged here.

Section 42.005(1)'s punitive-damages cap does not apply to insurance bad-faith actions under subsection (2)(b).

Minden v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-03(1), (2)(b)

bad faith actions. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 42.005(1)-(2)(b). Thus, this factor weighs in favor of the constitutional permissibility of a substantial punitive damages award.

Section 42.005(1)(a) caps punitive damages at three times the compensatory damages when compensatory damages are $100,000 or more.

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith · filed 1999-12-13(1)(a)

Punitive damages are limited to three times the compensatory damages, where, as here, compensatory damages are $100,000 or more. NRS 42.005(l)(a).

Section 42.005(1) authorizes punitive damages up to three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages exceed $100,000, or $300,000 when compensatory damages are less than $100,000.

In Re USA Commercial Mortg. Co. · filed 2011-07-14(1)

Specifically, Nevada law authorizes an award of punitive damages of: (i) three times the amount of compensatory damages, if that amount exceeds $100,000; or (ii) $300,000, if the amount of compensatory damages is less than $100,000.

After the trier of fact decides that punitive damages should be assessed, the same trier of fact must conduct a subsequent proceeding to determine the amount.

Spectrum Golf, Inc. v. Chiti (In re Spectrum Golf, Inc.) · filed 2006-09-22(3)

Pursuant to NRS 42.005(3) once a trier of fact makes a determination that punitive damages should be assessed, as this Court did in its prior Memorandum Decision, a “subsequent proceeding” must be conducted to determine the amount of said damages.

Subsection (3) requires a second proceeding before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of punitive damages after a finding that punitive damages will be assessed, but a defendant may waive that right by failing to assert it timely; subsection (1)'s limits are tied to compensatory damages rather than the defendant's financial condition.

In re: GO GLOBAL, INC. · filed 2014-01-13(3), (1)(a) and (b)

Therefore, we conclude that Appellants’ right to a second hearing is untimely asserted.

Section 42.005(1)(a) permits punitive damages of up to three times the compensatory damages awarded, but a treble-damages award requires sufficient evidence and must be reasonable and proportionate.

Durai v. Sun · filed 2020-05-19(1)(a)

The amount of punitive damages Durai seeks is troublesome, however. Durai requests $345,000 based upon Nevada Revised Statutes § 42.005(1)(a), which allows for punitive damages of up to three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded. ECF No. 70 at 5:14-15. But Durai offers no additional evidence beyond his overall fraud claim to justify such a large amount. “A plaintiff is not automatically entitled to punitive damages. Instead, punitive damages may be awarded when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.’” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 138 P.3d 433, 450-51 (Nev. 2006) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1)). In addition, “courts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and to the general damages recovered.” State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 426 (2003). While it appears that Sun committed fraud upon Durai, there is insufficient evidence to justify an award of treble damages. The purposes of punitive damages can be satisfied by a lesser amount. I therefore award Durai punitive damages of $150,000.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice and caps the award at three times compensatory damages when those damages are at least $100,000, otherwise $300,000.

Henning v. Arya · filed 2023-09-30

Under NRS 42.005, a Plaintiff may recover punitive damages “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” An award of exemplary or punitive damages made pursuant this section may not exceed “(a) three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more; or (b) three hundred thousand dollars if the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff is less than $100,000.” ... The Court finds that an award of punitive damages is warranted based upon Arya’s conduct outlined in this case. The facts of this case establish a pattern of deception, theft, and abuse over the span of several years. This conduct evinced clear malice towards Henning and resulted in her mental and physical oppression by Arya. The Court thus awards $5,000,000 in punitive damages.

Section 42.005(3) requires a separate hearing before punitive damages are awarded.

Coker Equipment Co., Inc. v. Citiwest Structures (California), Inc. · filed 2010-02-16(3)

Moreover, the district court satisfied Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(3) by providing a separate hearing before awarding punitive damages.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages on clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice; its standard is consistent with the federal standard for punitive damages in § 1983 actions.

Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc. · filed 2009-07-30

Here, the jury was instructed under NRS 42.005, which provides that punitive damages may be recovered if the plaintiff proves “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.” Applying the standards set forth in Smith, and Dang, we conclude that the district court properly instructed the jury that oppression, fraud, or malice can serve as a basis for a punitive damages award in a § 1983 action.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages against an individual defendant when clear and convincing evidence proves oppression, fraud, or malice.

Peterson v. Miranda · filed 2014-01-10

As to the individual defendants, however, punitive damages may be awarded “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.” NRS § 42.005. As there are disputed issues of fact concerning the individual defendants’ actions and conduct, the court shall not foreclose the possibility of punitive damages at this time.

Subsection (1) requires clear and convincing evidence before punitive damages may be awarded.

Kinder Morgan Energy v. Claytor C/W 60667 · filed 2014-12-16(1)

We next address plaintiffs' cross appeal, in which they argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their punitive damages claim, a decision we review de novo and "through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden," which here is clear and convincing evidence. NRS 42.005(1); ... Given the heightened burden of proof, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a triable issue of fact that Kinder knew exposure to the gasoline in its terminal, as opposed to raw benzene, posed a probable risk of cancer and that it willfully and deliberately disregarded that risk such as to submit the punitive damages issue to the jury.

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages, and vicarious liability for punitive damages is not automatic.

Terrell v. Central Washington Asphalt, Inc. · filed 2016-03-07(1)

Additionally, punitive damages in Nevada must be shown by clear and convincing evidence and vicarious liability for punitive damages is not automatic.

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of implied malice or oppression before punitive damages may be recovered.

Lewenz v. Landry · filed 2021-09-22(1)

Before punitive damages may be recovered, NRS 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of either implied malice or oppression. Once the district court makes a threshold determination that a defendant’s conduct is subject to this form of civil punishment, the decision to award punitive damages rests entirely within the jury’s discretion.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Russo v. Duracell Inc. · filed 2022-03-29(1)

In Nevada, courts can award punitive damages when a plaintiff proves “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS 42.005(1). ... In the present case, Plaintiff only provides conclusory allegations to support his claim of punitive damages. ... Thus, without providing any specific, factual allegations to support his punitive damages claim, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of implied malice or oppression before punitive damages may be recovered; after the court finds the conduct eligible for punitive damages, the jury decides whether to award them.

Allen v. Worldwide Flight Services Inc · filed 2023-03-13(1)

Before punitive damages may be recovered, NRS 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of either implied malice or oppression. Once the district court makes a threshold determination that a defendant’s conduct is subject to this form of civil punishment, the decision to award punitive damages rests entirely within the jury’s discretion.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, is proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Wright v. Scoma · filed 2023-04-25(1)

Wright has proven “by clear and convincing evidence that [Scoma] has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1). Wright therefore is entitled to treble punitive damages in the amount of $5,470,473.99. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1)(a).

Section 42.005(1) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.

Allan v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-09(1)

“Instead, a plaintiff must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.’” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 138 P.3d 433, 450–51 (Nev. 2006) (quoting NRS 42.005(1)). Plaintiff does not present evidence that Progressive’s conduct rose to the high level required for punitive damages.”

Section 42.005(1) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Mullaney v. The Travelers Indemnity Company · filed 2025-09-11(1)

To recover them, a plaintiff must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty of oppression, fraud[,] or malice, express or implied.’”

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice, but its broad authorization does not permit punitive damages against a government entity.

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt · filed 2014-09-18(1)

NRS 42.005(1) provides that punitive damages may be awarded when a defendant "has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied." ... The broad allowance for punitive damages under NRS 42.005 does not authorize punitive damages against a government entity.

Section 42.005(1)'s general authorization of punitive damages does not authorize punitive damages against a government entity.

FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATT · filed 2017-09-14(1)

NRS 42.005(1) provides that punitive damages may be awarded when a defendant "has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied." ... The broad allowance for punitive damages under NRS 42.005 does not authorize punitive damages against a government entity.

Section 42.005(1) authorizes punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, but does not authorize punitive damages against a government entity.

FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATT · filed 2017-12-26(1)

NRS 42.005(1) provides that punitive damages may be awarded when a defendant "has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied." ... The broad allowance for punitive damages under NRS 42.005 does not authorize punitive damages against a government entity.

Section 42.005(3) requires the same trier of fact to decide whether punitive damages are warranted and, in a subsequent proceeding, the amount to award; when a remand trial addresses only punitive damages, that fact-finder must decide entitlement before amount.

D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Betsinger · filed 2014-10-16(3)

NRS 42.005(3) unambiguously requires that fact-finder to first determine whether punitive damages are warranted—i.e., whether there is clear and convincing evidence of a defendant's oppression, fraud, or malice—before determining the amount of punitive damages to award.

Section 42.005(3) requires punitive-damages liability and the amount of damages to be determined in separate proceedings before the same trier of fact.

In Re: Connell Living Trust · filed 2019-03-29(3)

The parties are correct that NRS 42.005(3) requires bifurcated proceedings for punitive damages: "If punitive damages are claimed. , the trier of fact shall make a finding of whether such damages will be assessed. If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed." (emphasis added).

Section 42.005(3) requires the court to first decide whether the claimant presented sufficient evidence to support punitive damages and then conduct a subsequent proceeding to determine the appropriate amount.

Attia Vs. Dennis E. Rusk, Architect, Llc · filed 2019-11-15(3)

By canceling the second phase of trial, the district court summarily foreclosed Rusk's claims seeking punitive damages without hearing any evidence on those claims. See NRS 42.005(3) (requiring the court to first determine whether the claimant presented sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages and then hold a subsequent proceeding to determine the appropriate amount of punitive damages).

Section 42.005(3) requires bifurcated punitive-damages proceedings, and the court satisfied that requirement by holding a separate hearing to determine the amount.

Cash Today LLC v. MTE LLC · filed 2025-07-17(3)

Moreover, the Court conducted a hearing on May 28, 2025, to determine the amount of punitive damages to be assessed. Thus, the bifurcated proceedings requirement for punitive damages under Nevada law is satisfied.

Section 42.005(3) requires a subsequent proceeding before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of punitive damages after liability is established.

JB Carter Enterprises, LLC dba ATM Merchant Systems v. Elavon, Inc. · filed 2026-01-09(3)

When it has been determined that punitive damages will be assessed, NRS 42.005(3) provides that “a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed.”

Section 42.005(1)(b) caps punitive damages at $300,000 when compensatory damages are less than $100,000.

Elletson v. Chalmers Automotive, LLC · filed 2020-05-22(1)(b)

Nevada law caps the award of punitive damages at $300,000 when, as here, the amount of compensatory damages awarded is less than $100,000. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1)(b). ... There is clear and convincing evidence that defendants are guilty of fraud in this case and have repeatedly engaged in a pattern of fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the court finds that an award of $300,000—the maximum penalty authorized by N.R.S. 42.005 in this case—is appropriate as a punishment for defendants’ wrongful conduct and, hopefully, as a deterrent from future fraud.

Section 42.005 does not authorize a plaintiff to recover “double” treble damages.

Curtis v. State of Washington Inc · filed 2021-01-20

The court notes that Plaintiff cites to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005 as the statute allowing him to seek treble damages. However, Plaintiff is advised that no provision of the statute allows Plaintiff to seek “double” treble damages.

Section 42.005(1) requires evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice before punitive damages may be awarded.

Lopez Vs. Progressive N. Insurance Co. · filed 2021-05-14(1)

We further conclude that the district court properly dismissed Lopez's request for punitive damages when it granted Progressive's first motion for partial summary judgment. Lopez's only remaining claims were for breach of contract and declaratory relief and she did not provide any evidence tending to show that Progressive was "guilty of oppression, fraud or malice in denying her claim. NRS 42.005(1); see also Ins. Co. of the W. v. Gibson Tile Co., 122 Nev. 455, 464, 134 P.3d 698, 703 (2006) (providing that punitive damages are generally not available for breach-of-contract claims).

Section 42.005 caps punitive damages at $300,000 when the compensatory damages award is less than $100,000.

Miyayama v. Hosoda · filed 2025-05-29

Punitive damages are designed not to compensate the plaintiff for harm suffered but, instead, to punish and deter the defendant’s culpable conduct. To protect against grossly excessive or arbitrary awards, the United States Supreme Court has fashioned, and the Nevada Supreme Court has adopted, three guideposts for deciding when a punitive damage award has violated due process: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the ratio of the punitive damage award to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff; and (3) how the punitive damages award compares to other civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct. The first guidepost is the most important. The Ninth Circuit has found that the second guidepost is irrelevant in cases where a plaintiff is awarded only nominal damages. And in analyzing the third, the Nevada statutory cap on punitive damages is relevant and, specifies that, if a compensatory damages award is less than $100,000.00, punitive damages are capped at $300,000.00.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation, including unjust enrichment, upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, while § 42.005(1)(a) generally caps such damages at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages are $100,000 or more, subject to a potentially lower constitutional limit.

UNITED HEALTHCARE INS. CO. v. FREMONT EMERGENCY SERVS. (MANDAVIA), LTD. C/W 85656 · filed 2025-06-12(1), (1)(a)

A plaintiff may recover punitive damages for the "breach of an obligation not arising from contract" when clear and convincing evidence of"oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied," exists. NRS 42.005(1). ... In examining the award of punitive damages here, we first conclude an unjust enrichment claim can support punitive damages. ... Even so, we must consider the amount of punitive damages awarded. NRS 42.005(1). Nevada statutory law generally limits punitive damages to "[t]hree times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more." NRS 42.005(1)(a). ... Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that an award of punitive damages in the maximum amount allowed by NRS 42.005(1)(a)—a ratio of 3:1—would violate due process, given the economic nature of the harm and the sophistication of the parties. Accordingly, we vacate the award of $60 million and remand to the district court to reduce the award of punitive damages to a 1:1 ratio of actual to punitive damages for each separate defendant.

Section 42.005(1)(a) caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages are $100,000 or more, but that cap does not reduce an award already below three times compensatory damages.

Andrews v. Raphaelson · filed 2009-09-17(1)(a)

Nevada Revised Statutes section 42.005 permits punitive damages “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 42.005(1). The statute limits punitive damages to “[tjhree times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more.” Id. § 42.005(l)(a). The jury’s punitive damages award was less than three times the total compensatory damages award, and thus the limitation in section 42.005 does not apply. Although the jury reported $285,074 in compensatory damages on its verdict form, it was specifically instructed to deduct $510,625 from its total compensatory damages award before reporting it on that form. Accordingly, we must presume that the jury’s total compensatory damages award equaled $795,699. See Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234, 120 S.Ct. 727, 145 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (“A jury is presumed to follow its instructions.”). The jury’s punitive damages award of $1,600,000 is less than three times $795,699, so Nevada Revised Statutes section 42.005 cannot provide a basis for limiting the punitive damages awarded in this case.

Section 42.005(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, before punitive damages may be awarded; an anti-SLAPP dismissal does not automatically establish that showing.

Cheng v. Guo · filed 2022-09-13(1)

In order to make out a claim for punitive damages under Nevada law, Plaintiff must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that Defendant acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.” ... This does not mean that a SLAPP suit plaintiff, by definition, acts with oppression, fraud, or malice, such that a prevailing defendant in a SLAPP lawsuit is automatically entitled to punitive damages. ... The Court need not determine whether Plaintiff is judicially estopped from presenting this argument because, at a minimum, it is clear that there exists a material factual dispute as to whether Defendant acted with the requisite malice in filing his defamation action against Plaintiff. ... To grant summary judgment for Plaintiff on this meager showing would dilute the Nevada law requiring a finding of intent. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied to the extent it seeks summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability for punitive damages.

Section 42.005(1) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

De Freitas v. the Hertz Corporation · filed 2025-02-28(1)

In any case, the district court committed no error. Under Nevada law, a plaintiff requesting punitive damages must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1). Nothing in the record provided clear and convincing evidence that Hertz’s decision to widen its lanes or its alleged refusal to address a malfunctioning vehicle approximated the kind of egregious conduct that warranted punitive damages.

Section 42.005 allows punitive damages for qualifying noncontract obligations upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, caps them at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages are at least $100,000, and requires a later hearing before the same factfinder where the defendant may present financial-condition evidence.

Beauregard v. Sampson · filed 2024-09-23(1), (3), (4)

However, punitive damages may not exceed three times the amount of compensatory damages if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more. ... the Court concurs that a hearing to assess the appropriate amount of punitive damages is required under NRS § 42.005. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(3) (“If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed.”). ... During this hearing, Defendants will have the opportunity to present evidence regarding their financial condition. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(4).

Section 42.005(1) authorizes punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence proves the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Maddox v. Adler · filed 2024-09-29(1)

The Nevada Supreme Court has explained “NRS 42.005 governs when punitive damages are authorized . . . . [i]n particular, subsection 1 authorizes punitive damages when ‘it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.’” D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Betsinger, 335 P.3d 1230, 1232 (Nev. 2014) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1)). ... For NRS 42.005, fraud is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deception or concealment of a material fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights or property or to otherwise injure another person.” NRS 42.001(2). The Court finds the allegations as detailed above are sufficient to meet this definition of fraud. The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs may seek punitive damages for claims 2, 3, and 5. However, the request for punitive damages will be stricken from claims 1 and 6.

Section 42.005(1) authorizes punitive damages only upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and requires compensatory damages as a prerequisite.

Jb Carter Enterprises, LLC v. Elavon, Inc. · filed 2025-01-02(1)

Punitive damages are authorized “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1); accord Garcia v. Awerbach, 463 P.3d 461, 464 (Nev. 2020). ... Nevada law indeed provides that compensatory damages are a prerequisite for punitive damages. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1).

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence proves oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc. · filed 2025-01-29

Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to allege facts supporting an award of punitive damages. (ECF No. 30 at 23-24.) Under Nevada law, punitive damages are available “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied . . .” NRS 42.005. At the motion to dismiss stage, Plaintiff only need state the “bare minimum” of facts that could plausibly give rise to punitive damages. Lewenz v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 220-CV-01994-KJD-EJY, 2021 WL 4341940, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 22, 2021). Plaintiff has at the least alleged several factual instances of fraud in their complaint. Furthermore, dismissal of a request for punitive damages would be premature at the motion to dismiss stage. See AC Media Grp., LLC v. Sprocket Media, Inc., No. 216-CV-02145-APG-GWF, 2017 WL 1458198, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2017). Thus, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is denied.

Section 42.005 allows punitive damages only when a party is guilty of oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

White v. TK Elevator Corporation · filed 2025-01-29

Punitive damages are available when a party is “guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS 42.005. ... The record evidence fails to support punitive damages. Plaintiff has not alleged fraud. ... No evidence shows that Defendant’s conduct leading to Plaintiffs injuries otherwise exceeded recklessness. ... Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding punitive damages.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation upon clear-and-convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and requires a bifurcated proceeding in which the amount is decided separately.

Cash Today LLC v. MTE LLC · filed 2025-04-21(3) (4)

Nevada law requires bifurcated proceedings for punitive damages. “If punitive damages are claimed . . ., the trier of fact shall make a finding of whether such damages will be assessed. If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed.” ... Punitive damages are available “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” ... Here, punitive damages are available for Defendants’ actions in tortiously interfering with Plaintiffs’ business relationships with the Las Vegas ATM customers and conversion of the Las Vegas ATM assets. ... Therefore, the Court will hold a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on May 15, 2025, to determine the amount of punitive damages to be assessed. During this hearing, the Court will hear arguments from the parties and Defendants will have the opportunity to present evidence regarding their financial condition.

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages for a claim arising from a breach of a noncontractual duty only when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Karen v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2025-07-22

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005 provides that in actions arising for a breach of a duty not arising from contract, “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, at best the complaint alleges a dispute about the plaintiffs’ underinsured motorist insurance and medical payment claims. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating that USAA, USAA Casualty, or Garrison acted with oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice in this dispute. Therefore, the complaint does not satisfy the requirements of § 42.005 and the request is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.

Bontly v. Audi of America, LLC · filed 2025-09-11(1)

Bontly may recover punitive damages for his unjust enrichment claim if he shows at trial by clear and convincing evidence that Audi “has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” NRS § 42.005(1).

Section 42.005 permits punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, for a noncontractual obligation when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or express or implied malice.

Ameritina Dental Craig LLC dba Nevada Dentistry and Braces v. Ray America, Inc. · filed 2025-09-30

Pursuant to NRS 42.005, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

Section 42.005(1) caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages exceed $100,000, or at $300,000 when compensatory damages are less than $100,000.

3685 San Fernando Lenders, LLC v. Compass USA SPE LLC · filed 2011-07-14(1)

Specifically, Nevada law authorizes an award of punitive damages of: (i) three times the amount of compensatory damages, if that amount exceeds $100,000; or (ii) $300,000, if the amount of compensatory damages is less than $100,000. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 42.005(1).

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages only when clear and convincing evidence proves oppression, fraud, or malice.

Kennedy v. Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc. · filed 2010-07-19(1)

In Nevada, punitive damages may only be awarded “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” Nev.Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1). ... Defendant has not met its initial burden. ... Defendant has therefore not shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to oppression, fraud, or malice. ... The Court therefore denies the motion as to punitive damages.

Section 42.005(1)(a) caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages are at least $100,000.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener · filed 2008-09-11(1)(a)

Applying the statutory cap under NRS 42.005(l)(a), the district court remitted the jury’s original punitive damage award of $2,500,000 to $968,070, three times the untrebled amount of the Thitcheners’ trespass and conversion damages. Reviewing this reduced award under the due process guideposts adopted in Bongiovi v. Sullivan, we conclude that $968,070 was not unreasonable or clearly disproportionate to the amount of harm suffered by the Thitcheners or to the compensatory damage award.

Section 42.005(1) requires compensatory damages on the same claim to support punitive damages, and nominal damages may satisfy that requirement.

Great West Capital, LLC v. Payne · filed 2025-08-27(1)

A judgment awarding punitive damages on a fraud claim cannot stand without a judgment for compensatory damages on the same claim. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1); ... In the absence of applicable Nevada case law, this Court presumes the Nevada Supreme Court would follow the well-established California law interpreting the statute and concludes that an award of nominal damages may justify an award of punitive damages in this case.

Section 42.005(1) permits punitive damages in a noncontract action when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence, and subsection (3) requires a subsequent proceeding before the same trier of fact to determine their amount.

Beauregard · filed 2025-09-30(3), (1)

See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(3) (“If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed.”). The hearing was held on February 11, 2025. ... “[I]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where is it proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” ... Accordingly, the Court orders an award of punitive damages in the amount of $750,000.00, nearly two times the amount of compensatory damages ($100,000.00 in consideration + $284,717.28 unpaid affiliate commissions).

Section 42.005(2)(b) permits unlimited punitive damages against an insurance company when imposed for bad faith.

Coleman v. Assurant, Inc. · filed 2006-11-21(2)(b)

Furthermore, as a matter of Nevada law, punitive damages against an insurance company are unlimited when imposed for bad faith. Nev.Rev.Stat. § 42.005(2)(b).