Statute of Limitations in Accounting Malpractice: Accrual at Service Completion or Inquiry Notice; Standards for NRCP 60(b) and 68 Awards

Introduction

In Tricarichi v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (Nev. May 29, 2025), the Nevada Supreme Court resolved multiple issues in a consolidated accounting-malpractice action. Appellant Michael Tricarichi, after being hit with a $20 million IRS deficiency and penalties for a 2003 corporate liquidation transaction, sued his former advisor PwC in 2016. The district court granted summary judgment on his “2003‐based” claims as time-barred, tried and rejected his “2008-based” claims, denied his motion for relief under NRCP 60(b), and awarded PwC fees under NRCP 68. Tricarichi appealed, challenging the accrual rule for malpractice, the denial of newly discovered evidence relief, and the fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held:

Under NRS 11.2075(1), an accounting-malpractice claim accrues no later than four years after completion of the service, or two years after discovery/inquiry notice—whichever is earlier—and does not await actual IRS assessment. Tricarichi’s 2003 claims expired by October 2007 (service completion + 4 years) or February 2010 (inquiry notice + 2 years).
His NRCP 60(b) motion based on an Oregon-office email and risk‐management policy was properly denied: the “new” evidence neither related to his transaction nor would it have tolled the limitations period under NRS 11.2075(2).
Under NRCP 68 and the multi-factor Beattie test, PwC’s 2019 offer was rejected in good faith but its 2021 offer ($50,000) was unreasonably refused—justifying partial attorney fee recovery. The district court validly calculated fees under Brunzell.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

JSaranullo v. Ramos, 136 Nev. 134 (2020) – standard for de novo review of summary judgment.
NRS 11.2075 – four-year “completion” rule and two-year “discovery/inquiry notice” rule for accountant malpractice, with limited concealment tolling.
Winn v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 128 Nev. 246 (2012) – inquiry notice arises when a reasonable person would investigate.
Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 644 N.E.2d 1009 (N.Y. 1994) – New York’s three-year accrual at receipt of work product.
Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, 833 F.2d 208 (9th Cir. 1987) – NRCP 60(b)(2) requires newly discovered evidence likely to change outcome.
Cook v. Cook, 112 Nev. 179 (1996) – abuse-of-discretion standard for NRCP 60(b).
Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579 (1983) – factors governing fee awards under NRCP 68 offers of judgment.
Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat’l Bank, 85 Nev. 345 (1969) – criteria for reasonable attorney fee awards.
O’Connell v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 134 Nev. 550 (2018) – discretion in fee awards and sufficiency of billing records.

2. Legal Reasoning

Accrual of Malpractice Claims: NRS 11.2075(1)(b) bars suits more than four years after service completion; subsection (a) bars suits more than two years after discovery or inquiry notice. Tricarichi’s faulty‐advice claim thus expired by October 2007 or, at the latest, February 2010 (two years after the IRS’s 2008 letter). The Court rejected his argument that accrual waits on actual injury (the IRS’s 2012 deficiency determination).

NRCP 60(b) Relief: To reopen judgment, evidence “newly discovered” must be material and likely to change the result (Coastal Transfer). Tricarichi’s Oregon email pertained to a different client transaction and did not demonstrate PwC concealed errors in his own tax advice; likewise, the risk‐management policy was generic. The district court reasonably concluded no entitlement to tolling under NRS 11.2075(2).

NRCP 68 Fee Award: Beattie requires courts to weigh multiple factors when an offer of judgment is rejected. PwC’s 2019 offer was generous relative to the provable damages at that time, so rejection was in good faith. By 2021, discovery had confirmed PwC’s likely near‐complete vindication, making the same $50,000 offer far more attractive; Tricarichi’s refusal was unreasonable. The court calculated a reasonable fee under Brunzell despite flat fees and imperfect time records, explaining its method and findings.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies that accounting malpractice claims in Nevada must be filed within four years of service completion or two years of inquiry notice—regardless of when actual tax assessments occur. It confirms that NRCP 60(b) relief demands transaction-specific, outcome-altering evidence, not general industry warnings. It further reinforces nuanced application of Beattie for successive offers of judgment and validates flexible Brunzell-based fee computations. Practitioners must track accrual from service dates or first notice of possible error and should heed the timing and content of offers of judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Accrual vs. Injury: “Accrual” means when your right to sue begins—here, when services end or when you should have known an error occurred—not when you suffer the full loss.
Inquiry Notice: A formal or informal warning that triggers a duty to investigate; once a reasonable person learns enough to suspect malpractice, the clock starts.
NRCP 60(b)(2): Allows reopening a judgment for new evidence—only if it truly could have changed the court’s decision.
NRCP 68 Offers of Judgment: A statutory incentive to settle: if you refuse an offer and do worse at trial, you pay the other side’s post-offer fees.
Beattie Factors: A six-factor test in Nevada evaluating offer reasonableness, proportionality, and the parties’ conduct.
Brunzell Factors: Nevada’s five-factor standard for determining a reasonable attorney fee award (time, skill, result, etc.).

Conclusion

Tricarichi v. PwC reiterates that Nevada’s statutory limitations for accounting malpractice are strictly enforced and begin at service completion or inquiry notice, not at final injury. It underscores that broad, generic evidence of industry risk does not revive a time-barred claim and upholds a disciplined, factor-based approach to fee shifting under NRCP 68 and Brunzell. This ruling provides clear guidance to accountants, lawyers, and clients on both the timing of malpractice claims and the strategic use of offers of judgment.