Yes. Under NRS 42.010, a person injured by a driver who was violating Nevada’s DUI laws can seek punitive damages if the driver willfully drank alcohol or used another substance knowing they would drive afterward. Those punitive damages come on top of compensatory damages, and the cap that limits most punitive awards in Nevada does not apply to them.
Whether punitive damages can actually be collected is a separate question that often turns on insurance and the driver’s own assets, covered below. The civil claim also runs separately from any criminal DUI case.
Punitive damages are meant to punish the person who caused the harm and to discourage the same conduct by others. They are not tied to a specific bill or loss. Compensatory damages are different: they repay what the crash actually cost you, including medical bills, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering. The two can be awarded in the same case, and punitive damages are only available on top of compensatory damages, never on their own.
Most Nevada punitive damages claims run through NRS 42.005, which requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. Drunk driving claims under NRS 42.010 follow a different path, explained below. Because the rules are unusual, a Las Vegas drunk driving accident lawyer can help you understand whether punitive damages are realistic in your car accident case.
A DUI arrest leads to a criminal case brought by the State of Nevada, and that case is separate from your civil claim. A conviction, a guilty plea, or a blood or breath test result can be strong evidence, but the civil case does not depend on the criminal case and does not have to wait for it to finish. The standard of proof is also different. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil claims are generally decided on a lower standard.
NRS 42.010 creates a specific path to punitive damages for injuries caused by impaired drivers. It applies when the defendant caused an injury while driving in violation of Nevada’s DUI statutes (NRS 484C.110, 484C.130 or 484C.430), after willfully consuming or using alcohol or another substance, knowing they would drive afterward. When those conditions are met, the injured person may recover punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
The statute also says that NRS 42.005 does not apply to these claims. Attorneys generally read that sentence as removing both the usual cap and the heightened oppression, fraud, or malice requirement that applies to other punitive damages claims. The Nevada Supreme Court has said very little about NRS 42.010, so much of how it works comes from the plain language of the statute rather than case law.
Under NRS 42.005, punitive damages are normally capped at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages are $100,000 or more, and at $300,000 when they are less. The cap does not apply to a short list of claims named in NRS 42.005(2):
Drunk driving is not on that list. Instead, the cap falls away because NRS 42.010 itself says NRS 42.005 does not apply to intoxicated driver claims. In practice, that means there is no statutory ceiling on punitive damages in these cases, although the amount is still up to the judge or jury and must be supported by the evidence.
Nevada lawmakers adopted this rule in 1989 so that drunk drivers would answer financially for the choice to drink and drive, not just in criminal court.
To seek punitive damages under NRS 42.010, you generally need to show four things: the driver caused your injury, the driver was violating one of the DUI statutes listed in NRS 42.010 at the time, the driver willfully drank or used the substance, and the driver knew they would be driving afterward. Evidence often includes the police report, blood or breath test results, witness statements, bar or restaurant receipts, video, and the criminal case record. A criminal conviction is not required.
Proving the driver knew they would drive afterward is often straightforward. Someone who drove to a bar, kept their keys, and left in their own car usually knew they would be driving. You also need to prove your compensatory damages, since punitive damages are added on top of them.
Winning punitive damages and collecting them are two different things. Nevada law allows insurers to cover punitive damages, except for harm the insured intended to cause (NRS 681A.095), but many auto policies exclude or limit punitive damages in their own terms. When the policy does not pay, collection depends on the driver’s personal assets, such as income, savings, or property, and many at-fault drivers have limited means.
Punitive damages are not available at all against a government entity under NRS 41.035, which matters if the crash involved a government vehicle or employee. An attorney can review every available policy, including your own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, to find the realistic sources of recovery.
Usually not. Nevada’s dram shop rule, NRS 41.1305, generally shields anyone who serves alcohol to an adult 21 or older from liability for what that person later does, even if the server kept pouring for someone who was obviously drunk. There is a narrow exception for knowingly serving someone under 21, but it does not apply to licensed bars, casinos, or their staff acting in the course of business. Evidence from the casino floor, such as receipts and surveillance video, can still help prove the driver’s intoxication, as our post on overserved casino patrons and DUI evidence explains.
Valet situations raise their own questions, such as when a valet hands keys back to a visibly impaired guest. Those claims depend on the specific facts and parties involved, and our guide to valet-returned vehicles in DUI crashes walks through them.
No. Under NRS 42.010, the usual NRS 42.005 cap does not apply to punitive damages against a driver who caused an injury after willfully drinking or using drugs, knowing they would drive. A criminal conviction is not required for this rule to apply.
No. A DUI conviction is strong evidence, but the civil claim is separate from the criminal case and can move forward without a conviction. You still need evidence that the driver was impaired and that the other requirements of NRS 42.010 are met.
Sometimes. Nevada law allows insurers to cover punitive damages, except for harm the insured intended to cause, under NRS 681A.095. Whether a specific auto policy pays depends on its terms, and many policies exclude punitive damages. If coverage is excluded, punitive damages usually have to be collected from the driver’s own assets.
In most cases, two years from the date of the crash under NRS 11.190(4)(e). That deadline applies whether or not a criminal case is pending, and the criminal case is handled by prosecutors, not by you.
Claims for property damage generally have a three-year deadline, and different rules can apply when the injured person is a minor or when a crash causes a death, so it is worth confirming the deadline with an attorney early.
Missing the deadline can end the claim entirely, even if the driver was clearly at fault.
Yes. Under NRS 41.085, the decedent’s estate can recover the punitive damages the person could have sought if they had lived, which includes an NRS 42.010 claim against a drunk driver. The family members who bring the wrongful death claim recover separately for their own losses, such as grief, loss of companionship, and loss of support. Pain and suffering the person endured before death is also part of the heirs’ recovery.
A Las Vegas wrongful death lawyer can explain how these pieces fit together in a specific case.
If a drunk or impaired driver hurt you or someone you love, Pacific West Injury Law can review what happened and explain your options, including whether punitive damages may be available. Schedule a free case evaluation to talk through your case.
Disclaimer: The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict future cases. You may have to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees and costs in the event of a loss.
Pacific West Injury Law • Greater Las Vegas’ Award-Winning Injury Attorneys • #bluebearcares
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.