Completion‐of‐Services Trigger for Accounting Malpractice Statute of Limitations under NRS 11.2075

Introduction

In TRICARICHI v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP (Nos. 86317/87375/87835), the Supreme Court of Nevada confronted three consolidated appeals arising from an accounting malpractice suit. Appellant Michael A. Tricarichi challenged: (1) the district court’s summary‐judgment dismissal of claims based on PwC’s 2003 tax‐advice services; (2) the denial of his NRCP 60(b) motion for relief based on “newly discovered evidence” of PwC’s internal emails and policies; and (3) the award of attorney fees to PwC under NRCP 68 after Tricarichi rejected a $50,000 offer of judgment. Judge Joanna Kishner presided below. On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed in full, clarifying when the statute of limitations begins to run in accounting‐malpractice claims and reaffirming standards for NRCP 60(b) and NRCP 68 awards.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously held:

Statute of Limitations: A malpractice suit against an accounting firm under NRS 11.2075 is time‐barred four years after “completion of performance” of the service, regardless of when a client’s injury (such as an IRS assessment) accrues. Tricarichi’s 2003‐based claims, asserted in 2016, were beyond the four‐year window and no tolling applied.
NRCP 60(b) Relief: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief based on an internal PwC email and risk‐management policy, because the newly discovered evidence would not have altered the statute‐of‐limitations analysis or the bench‐trial outcome.
NRCP 68 Attorney Fees: The court correctly applied the Beattie factors to determine that Tricarichi’s rejection of the 2021 offer of judgment was unreasonable, meriting an award of fees. It also properly calculated a reasonable fee under Brunzell despite one firm’s flat‐fee billing arrangement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

JSaranullo v. Ramos (136 Nev. 134, 2020): Established de novo review for summary judgment.
Winn v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (128 Nev. 246, 2012): Defined “inquiry notice” standard for tolling analysis.
Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse (644 N.E.2d 1009, N.Y. 1994): New York’s accrual‐upon‐receipt rule for accountant‐malpractice claims.
Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. (833 F.2d 208, 9th Cir. 1987): Federal standard for “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2).
Beattie v. Thomas (99 Nev. 579, 1983): Factors for awarding fees under NRCP 68 (offer of judgment).
Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat’l Bank (85 Nev. 345, 1969): Criteria for determining reasonable attorney fees.
O’Connell v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (134 Nev. 550, 2018): Discretionary review of fee awards and billing‐record requirements.
Logan v. Abe (131 Nev. 260, 2015) & Shuette v. Beazer Homes (121 Nev. 837, 2005): Permitting flexible approaches to fee calculations.

Legal Reasoning

Statute of Limitations (NRS 11.2075): Subsection (1)(b) bars malpractice actions “four years after completion of performance” by an accountant. The Court rejected Tricarichi’s argument that the cause of action did not accrue until the IRS’s 2012 assessment. Under the plain text, time began to run in October 2003—and even under subsection (1)(a), a letter from the IRS in February 2008 put him on inquiry notice, so the two‐year period expired in February 2010. No concealment tolled the period under subsection (2): the newly discovered email concerned a different client’s transaction and would not have triggered tolling for Tricarichi’s claims.

NRCP 60(b)(2): To secure relief for “newly discovered evidence,” a movant must show it could not, with reasonable diligence, have found the evidence before trial and that it would probably change the result. Here the Court agreed that Tricarichi knew his claims by 2008; the Marshall email and risk‐policy documents would not have altered the statute‐of‐limitations or bench‐trial outcomes, so denial of relief was within the district court’s discretion.

NRCP 68 & Beattie Factors: The Court affirmed that a party rejecting a valid offer of judgment in bad faith may be liable for the opponent’s fees from that point on. By 2021, the evidence and trial posture rendered PwC’s $50,000 offer eminently reasonable; Tricarichi’s continued litigation was objectively unreasonable. The district court properly weighed the Beattie factors and then applied Brunzell to calculate a lodestar‐based fee, noting that Nevada law does not mandate detailed hourly records so long as the ultimate award is reasonable.

Impact

TRICARICHI v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS cements key principles:

Accounting‐malpractice plaintiffs in Nevada must file within four years of service completion—even if injury or discovery arises later—and should beware inquiry‐notice triggers.
NRCP 60(b)(2) relief remains narrow; evidence must be both undiscoverable with diligence and outcome‐determinative.
Offer‐of‐judgment practice under NRCP 68 requires careful calibration: rejecting a reasonable offer can expose litigants to significant fee exposure, measured flexibly under Brunzell.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inquiry Notice: A legal standard that kicks off the limitations clock when a reasonable person, given a triggering event (e.g., an IRS letter), should investigate potential claims.
Tolling: A pause in the running of the statute of limitations, here limited to periods when an accountant conceals an error that the client could not have discovered with diligence.
NRCP 60(b)(2): A rule allowing courts to set aside judgments for newly discovered evidence if it was unknowable earlier and likely to change the outcome.
NRCP 68 Offer of Judgment: A procedural device permitting a defendant to propose a settlement; if the plaintiff refuses and fares worse at trial, the defendant can recover post‐offer fees.
Beattie Factors: Criteria evaluating reasonableness of an offer (e.g., closeness of the case, discovery completed, bona fides of the offer).
Brunzell Lodestar: The basic calculation of reasonable attorney fees, considering the nature of the services, time spent, counsel’s experience, and prevailing rates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Nevada’s affirmance in TRICARICHI v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP clarifies that under NRS 11.2075 the statute of limitations for accounting‐malpractice claims begins upon completion of services, not injury accrual. It also reinforces stringent standards for NRCP 60(b) motions and underscores the risks of rejecting reasonable NRCP 68 offers of judgment. Together, these holdings guide practitioners on filing deadlines, post‐judgment relief, and fee exposure in Nevada’s civil litigation landscape.