On appeal, appellant first contends that he did not need to
comply with NRS 147.040(1) because his legal malpractice claim would not
diminish the decedent's estate. See Bell Brand Ranches, Inc. v. First Nat'l
Bank of Nev., 91 Nev. 88, 91, 531 P.2d 471, 473 (1975). In particular,
appellant contends that his claim, if successful, would be paid from
proceeds of the decedent's professional liability insurance policy, which is
not part of the decedent's estate. Respondents, however, counter that the
insurance policy is subject to a $10,000 deductible, meaning that the first
$10,000 of a successful claim would be paid by the decedent's estate,
thereby diminishing the estate and requiring appellant to comply with
NRS 147.040(1). Respondents' argument is consistent with Nevada law,
see Bell Brand Ranches, 91 Nev. at 91, 531 P.2d at 472-73, and appellant
has not disputed the argument's factual accuracy either in district court or
on appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly
determined that appellant was required to comply with NRS 147.040(1).
Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029.
Appellant next contends that even if he needed to comply with
NRS 147.040(1), the district court erred in determining that appellant did
not satisfy NRS 147.040(3)'s exception for late-filed claims. We disagree.
By its terms, NRS 147.040(3) permits a claimant to file a late claim only
when "the claimant did not have notice as provided in NRS 155.020 or
actual notice of the administration of the estate." Even accepting
appellant's argument that he did not have notice as provided in NRS
155.020, appellant nevertheless had actual notice of the administration of
the estate. Id. Specifically, it is undisputed that appellant knew of the
decedent's death by December 2010, which was sufficient to constitute
SUPREME COUFtT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A COO
actual notice of the estate's administration. 1 See Bell Brand Ranches, 91
Nev. at 92 n.3, 531 P.2d at 473 n.3 ("[Al late filing may be denied if the
creditor has knowledge of the death of the decedent, for such knowledge
charges him with duty of further inquiry."); Gardner Hotel Supply of
Houston v. Estate of Clark, 83 Nev. 388, 392, 432 P.2d 495, 497 (1967)
(same) Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly
dismissed appellant's complaint for failure to file a claim with the
decedent's estate in compliance with NRS 147.040(1). We therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
eveare
Parraguirre
\ J.
Saitta
cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court
Hon. Sally Loehrer, Senior Judge
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Brent D. Percival
Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P. C.
Eighth District Court Clerk
'It should further be noted that, at the time appellant's potential
malpractice claim against the decedent accrued in December 2010,
appellant still had roughly two months within which to file a claim with
the decedent's estate. NRS 147.040(1).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A