AN ACT relating to public office; authorizing a public officer to request that certain personal information contained in the records of the Secretary of State, a county or city clerk, county recorder or county assessor be kept confidential; authorizing a candidate or public officer to use campaign contributions to pay for expenses relating to personal security; authorizing a public officer to request that the Department of Motor Vehicles display an alternate address on the person's driver's license, commercial driver's license or identification card; providing penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
AB 3 revises Nevada’s court-annexed alternative dispute resolution framework for civil actions. The bill raises the threshold for mandatory nonbinding arbitration from $50,000 to $100,000 per plaintiff for qualifying district court civil damage actions, while preserving exceptions for cases already subject to other dispute-resolution procedures. It also updates related provisions governing voluntary arbitration programs and the Supreme Court’s authority to establish settlement conferences, mediation, and short trials.
The bill expands and modernizes the arbitration rules the Supreme Court must adopt. It requires the rules to set maximum compensation limits for arbitrators, rather than the current fixed hourly and per-case cap, and authorizes prevailing-party attorney’s fees up to $15,000, along with costs and interest where allowed by statute or court rule. It also adds new categories of cases excluded from mandatory arbitration, including insurer bad-faith actions seeking punitive damages, sexual assault or sexual battery cases, and product liability actions. The bill applies to civil actions filed on or after January 1, 2026, while allowing immediate effectiveness for rulemaking and administrative preparation.
AB 3’s impact on state law is primarily procedural: it changes when civil cases must go through nonbinding arbitration and broadens the Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority over arbitration and short-trial programs. District courts in larger judicial districts will continue to be required to maintain arbitration programs, but the pool of cases subject to mandatory arbitration will shift upward in value and narrow in certain sensitive or complex case types. Parties in civil litigation, arbitrators, and courts will be affected by the new fee, cost, and attorney-fee provisions, as well as by the expanded list of excluded claims.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received and advanced with strong bipartisan support, passing the Assembly 41-1 and the Senate 20-1. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader public testimony or detailed discussion. The near-unanimous votes indicate broad agreement on the need to update arbitration thresholds and procedures.
The main points of contention, based on the text itself, are likely to involve the higher arbitration threshold, the expanded authority to award attorney’s fees, and the new exclusions from mandatory arbitration. Potentially affected stakeholders include litigants with mid-value civil claims, insurers facing bad-faith litigation, product-liability defendants, and advocates for sexual-assault survivors, all of whom may have different views on whether arbitration is appropriate or whether these cases should be kept out of the program. The bill also shifts some discretion to the Supreme Court and arbitration officials in setting compensation limits and administering the programs.
AB 3 amends Nevada’s civil arbitration statutes in Chapter 38 of NRS by increasing the mandatory nonbinding arbitration threshold to $100,000 per plaintiff, revising Supreme Court rulemaking requirements for arbitration and short-trial programs, and adding several new exclusions from mandatory arbitration. It also authorizes prevailing-party attorney’s fees up to $15,000 in arbitration and short-trial settings, and applies the changes to civil actions filed on or after January 1, 2026, with immediate effect for preparatory rulemaking.
The bill appears to have enjoyed strong overall support, as reflected in its lopsided passage in both chambers (41-1 in the Assembly and 20-1 in the Senate). With no committee transcript available, there is no documented debate to show organized opposition, but the voting pattern indicates broad consensus that the arbitration system needed updating.
Likely areas of disagreement center on whether mandatory arbitration should be expanded to higher-value cases, whether arbitrators and short-trial judges should be able to award attorney’s fees up to $15,000, and whether certain claims should be excluded from arbitration altogether. The new exclusions for insurer bad-faith punitive-damages cases, sexual assault or sexual battery cases, and product-liability actions may be supported by plaintiffs’ advocates and opposed by some defense-side stakeholders, while the increased threshold may be viewed as either improving efficiency or imposing arbitration on more substantial disputes.