Exclusive Remedy in Nevada

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

Workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy for injuries that arise out of employment and occur in the course of employment. NRS 616A.020. Employers are immune to most civil lawsuits concerning workplace injuries. NRS 616B.612.

This means that the employee cannot sue the employer in tort (where the employee might obtain money damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury. For example, the employee would not be able to obtain monetary relief for the pain and suffering she experienced.

REQUIREMENTS FOR IMMUNITY TO APPLY

For an employer to be immune to a lawsuit under the exclusive remedy rule, all of the following must be true:

1. An employment relationship exists.
2. The employer is insured or self-insured under Nevada workers’ compensation law.
3. The injury is compensable (it arises out of and in the course of employment).

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

Employees may avoid the exclusive remedy provision if they show that the employer deliberately and specifically intended to injure them. It is not enough for the employee to show that the employer acted with gross negligence or recklessness; she must show that the employer had a specific intent to cause harm.

To fall under this exception to the rule, the employee must show the employer:

• Had a deliberate intent to injure, or
• Engaged in conduct substantially certain to cause injury..

“THIRD PARTY” LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy rule does not prevent an injured worker from suing a third party whose negligence caused or contributed to the injury. Examples of third parties are equipment manufacturers, contractors.

STATUTORY EMPLOYEES

In construction, a principal contractor is often considered the "statutory employer" of a subcontractor’s employees and thus is protected by the exclusive remedy rule.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE

Nevada law requires almost every employer to maintain workers' compensation insurance. If the employer complies, the exclusive remedy rule applies automatically. If the employer fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the employee may sue the employer in tort.

CO-EMPLOYEE IMMUNITY

The rule also applies to co-workers. Generally, an employee cannot sue a colleague for negligence that caused a workplace injury.

BAD FAITH CLAIMS

While an employee cannot sue for the injury itself, Nevada law allows for separate legal actions if an insurance carrier or administrator handles a claim in bad faith (e.g., intentionally delaying or denying benefits without a reasonable basis).

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION

An employer may be sued if acting in a separate legal capacity independent of the employment relationship (rare and narrowly applied in Nevada). An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee. 

Find exclusive remedy rules and more from across the U.S. with Simply Research.

RECENT CASES

Bentham v. Washoe County Sch. Dist., No. 3:24-cv-00428-ART-CSD (D. Nev. 09/19/25)

A special education teacher was attacked at school by a student with a history of violence. He suffered a broken nose and a concussion. He sued the school district for personal injuries, claiming assault, battery, and intentional inInfliction of emotional distress. The school district asked the court to dismiss the claims based on the exclusive remedy rule. The court refused, noting that the teacher’s personal injury claims were intentional torts and that the teacher was claiming the district directly, or through the student, acted with the specific and deliberate intent to harm him. The court held that because the teacher alleged that the district (either directly or through the student) intended to harm him, these claims were not barred by the workers' compensation statutes.

Garibay v. The Howard Hughes Co., No. 86929 (Nev. 03/28/25)

A construction worker fell from scaffolding while working for a subcontractor. His estate filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against the general contractor. The court explained that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries or death. Further, employers are immune to tort liability for injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment. That immunity extends to principal contractors as well. The court noted that a “principal contractor” includes a general contractor coordinating or responsible for the project and subcontractors. Under NRS 616A.285, a "principal contractor" (general contractor) is legally considered the employer of all subcontractors and their employees. Because the general contractor in this case coordinated the project, it was a statutory employer and immune to the estate’s claims under the exclusive remedy rule.

Hernandez v. MGM Resorts International, No. 2:24-cv-00725-GMN-BNW (D. Nev. 02/27/25)

A resort employee took leave for breast cancer treatment. Shortly afterward, she claimed, the company fired her. She sued it for negligent infliction of emotional distress. She based that claim on her contention that the employer interfered with her  FMLA protections and failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. The employer asked the court to throw out the case based on the exclusive remedy rule. The court stated that, under Nevada law, an employer is generally immune from common law suits for an employee’s "injury by accident" occurring in the course of employment. However, there was no such injury here; the emotional and professional harms resulting from employment discrimination were not "injuries by accident." Because these harms were neither "sudden" nor "tangible traumatic events," they did not fall under the workers’ compensation statute’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the statute did not bar the employee for negligence in the context of discrimination.

EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEIGHBORING STATES

California

Oregon

Utah

Share This Article: