Senate Judiciary Committee hears AB489 to extend civil time limits for violent wrongful-death cases

Chair Scheibel opened the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on AB489, a bill sponsored through the Assembly Committee on Judiciary that would change Nevada’s civil statute of limitations for wrongful-death claims arising from intentional killings.

Proponents told the committee that the current two-year civil window effectively bars many families from pursuing civil remedies after violent deaths because criminal investigations can take years. Gerald “Gerry” Feynman, a former prosecutor who said he has worked “extensively on cases handling domestic violence, homicide cases, human trafficking cases, and other related deaths,” told senators, “The current civil statute of limitations for wrongful death claims forces a grieving family into an impossible position, giving them just 2 years to file a wrongful death claim regardless of whether that death was the result of a murder or by negligence.”

Shannon Forsyth, co-founder of Run to Rescue, described overlap between trafficking and domestic violence and the ways traffickers “are skilled at erasing evidence, silencing witnesses and ensuring their crimes remain buried for years, sometimes decades.” She and other witnesses said that civil claims often cannot be pursued while criminal investigations and prosecutions proceed, and that extending civil timelines would give families an opportunity to seek accountability when evidence or witnesses emerge later.

Glendene Grant, who identified herself as the mother of missing Jessica Foster, described a long search for her daughter and asked lawmakers to consider families who cannot pursue civil cases under the current statute. “It’s been over 19 years since Jesse went missing,” Grant said. “Under the current law, we would be prevented from seeking justice because of the statute of limitation laws.”

Committee members and legal counsel discussed possible drafting and scope issues. Counsel for the bill team, Sean Higgins of Andrews & Thornton, described a conceptual amendment intended to narrow liability: subsection language would limit civil liability to “natural persons and entities that knowingly and directly participated in the killing, whether by providing material assistance, acting under the killer’s direction, or operating as a killer’s alter ego,” and would strengthen alignment with existing probate structures and a right to a jury trial.

Opponents, including Misty Grimmer for the Nevada Resort Association, Jeff Rogan for Clark County, and business groups represented by Paul Muratkin (Vegas Chamber) and Brian Wachter (Retail Association of Nevada), said they support accountability for killers but expressed concern that the bill’s amended language could sweep in entities that are not directly responsible. “The amendment presented during the bill hearing … expands the scope of the bill to include entities that are not directly responsible for the killing,” Grimmer told the committee, and she urged further narrowing to natural persons who committed the killing.

Rogans and county counsel raised potential unintended impacts on sovereign-immunity exceptions and on other statutory causes of action, and asked sponsors to continue working on drafting to avoid collateral consequences. Proponents said they were negotiating with stakeholder groups and that the conceptual amendment was intended to prevent vicarious liability for ordinary negligence while capturing entities that intentionally facilitated killings.

Riley Svenson of the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence (Coalition name used by witness) offered support for the bill as victim-centered, noting that bringing civil claims while a criminal investigation is ongoing can jeopardize that investigation and that many homicide investigations remain active for years. Testimony from law enforcement and prosecutors quoted in the hearing record emphasized that criminal prosecutions for homicide have no statute of limitations in Nevada, and proponents argued the civil law should recognize the special nature of those cases.

The committee took testimony in support, opposition and neutral positions; sponsors presented a conceptual amendment on the record. The hearing concluded with the chair closing AB489 and opening the next item on the agenda. No formal vote on AB489 was recorded in the transcript.

Ending: Sponsors and opponents told the committee they would continue drafting negotiations. Committee members asked for follow-up information on issues raised in questioning, including how entity liability would be limited in practice and whether statutory triggers such as the presumption of death (which witnesses identified as three years under Nevada law for missing persons) should factor into accrual of civil claims.