Before Justices Douglas, Gibbons, and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Parraguirre.
In an action for personal injury against a taxi company, discovery revealed that medical malpractice may have aggravated the injuries. As such the taxi company filed a third-party complaint against the doctor, claiming equitable indemnity and contribution. The district court dismissed the complaint and the taxi company appealed. On appeal, the Court addressed the requirements for equitable indemnity and contribution, in general, and a contribution claim based on medical practice, in particular. The Court restated that one requirement for equitable indemnity is that the two tortfeasors have a pre-existing legal relationship or duty and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the equitable indemnity claim. However, the Court made clear that a claim for contribution against a joint tortfeasor is permissible under NRCP 14(a) even if the complaining party has not yet made a payment of damages. Finally, the Court held that a claim for contribution based on medical malpractice must comply with the statutory requirement that a complaint for medical malpractice be supported by an expert affidavit. As such, the Court reversed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. (Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
