Construction Claim Rules in Nebraska

Statutory interest rate

Floating rate, currently 5.970%/year, certified twice yearly (most contract claims); flat 12%/year alternative for written instruments

Nebraska ties both pre- and post-judgment interest to a floating Treasury-bill index by default: 2 percentage points above the bond investment yield on 26-week U.S. Treasury bills sold at the most recent auction before judgment, certified by the State Court Administrator and distributed to Nebraska judges, effective two weeks after the auction price is published. The current certified rate is 5.970%, effective July 16, 2026. Separately, a fixed 12% per year applies to money due on any instrument in writing (e.g., a signed construction contract), on funds received for another's use and retained without consent, on money loaned or due and withheld by unreasonable delay of payment and on unsettled account charges not paid within 30 days of billing.

Compounding: Simple interest, not compounded

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-103, 45-103.02 (floating judgment rate, certified by the State Court Administrator); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-104 (12% rate on written instruments and related claims)

Source: https://nebraskajudicial.gov/rules/administrative-policies-schedules/judgment-interest-rate

Last checked: 2026-08-23

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From when the cause of action arose, if the claim is liquidated; automatic, no settlement-offer requirement

Nebraska's prejudgment interest statute runs interest on a liquidated claim, such as an unpaid amount due under a written construction contract, from the date the cause of action arose until judgment is entered. No settlement offer or demand is required for a liquidated claim.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/chapter-45/statute-45-103-02/

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Not date of loss: requires a formal written settlement offer, then runs from that offer's date if the judgment exceeds it

For an unliquidated claim, such as most property-damage tort claims, Nebraska instead requires the plaintiff to make a written settlement offer, sent by certified mail with return receipt requested, delivered at least 10 days before trial and left open for at least 30 days, with proof of delivery filed with the court. If the eventual judgment exceeds that offer, interest runs from the date of the offer, not from the date of loss.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/chapter-45/statute-45-103-02/

Missing this specific written-offer procedure, or its timing/delivery requirements, can forfeit prejudgment interest entirely on an unliquidated property-damage claim.

Actual Cash Value rule

Broad evidence rule: labor may be depreciated even without express policy language

Nebraska's current controlling authority holds ACV means the depreciated value of the property under any of three related approaches (market value, replacement cost, or the broad evidence rule considering all relevant factors) and that insurers may depreciate labor costs as well as materials even if the policy doesn't expressly say so. An earlier decision had barred depreciation without express policy language in a narrow partial-loss scenario where repair cost wouldn't exceed the property's pre-loss value; that earlier ruling was distinguished, not overruled and remains good law only for that narrow fact pattern; for the general/default depreciation question, the later decision controls.

Citation: Henn v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 295 Neb. 859, 891 N.W.2d 388 (2017) (controlling); Olson v. Le Mars Mut. Ins. Co. of Iowa, 269 Neb. 800 (2005) (narrower, distinguished)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2017/s-16-597.html

Two sequential Nebraska Supreme Court cases, not one: Henn (2017) is the later, more specific and controlling authority; Olson (2005) still applies only to its narrow partial-loss/no-enhancement fact pattern. Both are named here per policy since they can appear to conflict at a glance.

ACV statute or regulation

No Nebraska statute or regulation defines how ACV must be calculated or restricts depreciation of labor. The rule in Nebraska comes from case law, not statute.

Nebraska's ACV rule comes from case law rather than statute. The Nebraska Supreme Court held in Henn v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (2017) that ACV may include depreciation of labor and a federal decision applying Nebraska law treated labor depreciation as permissible where the policy language allows it. Nebraska's insurance code and the Department of Insurance rules do not define an ACV methodology or address labor depreciation.

Source: https://doi.nebraska.gov/rules-regulations-and-guidance-document-index

This is a case law rule. There is no statutory or regulatory layer on top of it in Nebraska.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Nebraska statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Nebraska generally permits depreciating labor, with a narrower rule for ACV-only policies.

No Nebraska statute or regulation governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the Nebraska Supreme Court held an insurer may depreciate labor when calculating ACV. Under an ACV-only policy, or where the as-repaired ACV does not exceed the ACV at the time of loss, labor depreciation is permitted only if the policy expressly provides for it. With no statute in play the policy is the whole of the law here, so read three things in it: what proof of completed repairs the insurer can require, how long the insured has to claim the withheld depreciation and whether that period can be extended in writing. Policy deadlines commonly run from 180 days to two years from the date of loss and they are enforced as written. Ask for the extension before the period runs rather than after.

Citation: Henn v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 894 N.W.2d 179 (Neb. 2017); Olson v. Le Mars Mut. Ins. Co., 269 Neb. 800, 810 (2005).

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

The labor depreciation holdings are taken from a 2025 practitioner survey rather than the opinions.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable, with exceptions for the owner's arbitrary or unreasonable conduct, concealment, misrepresentation, fraud, bad faith and malicious intent

Roberts Constr. Co. v. State, 111 N.W.2d 767 (Neb. 1961) held a contractor suffering delay damages has a right of recovery absent a no-damages clause; Kiewit Constr. Co. v. Capital Elec. Constr. Co., Inc., 2005 WL 2563042 (D. Neb. 2005) confirms such clauses are enforceable except for delays caused by the owner's arbitrary or unreasonable conduct, absent concealment, misrepresentation, fraud, bad faith and malicious intent.

Citation: Roberts Constr. Co. v. State, 111 N.W.2d 767 (Neb. 1961); Kiewit Constr. Co. v. Capital Elec. Constr. Co., Inc., 2005 WL 2563042 (D. Neb. 2005).

Source: https://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

Construction contract filing deadline

5 years for a written contract or promise

Nebraska's limitations period for an action upon a specialty, or any agreement, contract, or promise in writing, is 5 years from accrual, covering an ordinary written construction-contract claim. Two deadlines sit in front of that one on most construction claims. A mechanic's lien and a payment bond claim each run on their own, far shorter clock, counted from last furnishing rather than from breach and missing either one removes the security while leaving the contract claim alive but unsecured. Check those dates first. Accrual is the other half of the question: the period runs from breach, which on a payment dispute is usually the date payment came due rather than the date the work was done.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205

Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/ne/chapter-25-courts-civil-procedure/ne-rev-st-sect-25-205/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New-employer rate 1.25% (non-construction) or 5.40% (construction); experience-rated range 0.00% to 5.40% across 20 categories; 2026 taxable wage base $9,000, or $24,000 for the highest-rated (Category 20) employers.

Nebraska assigns new employers to one of two starting rates depending on industry: 1.25% for non-construction employers and 5.40% for construction employers. Established employers are placed into one of 20 experience-based categories, with combined tax rates ranging from 0.00% (Category 1) to 5.40% (Category 20) and experience factors from 0.00 to 2.60. Nebraska uses a two-tier taxable wage base: most employers (Categories 1 through 19) pay tax on the first $9,000 of each employee's wages, while Category 20 employers (the highest-rated group, under a two-tier wage base created by LB428 in 2019) pay on the first $24,000.

Citation: Nebraska Department of Labor, 2026 Guide to Understanding Nebraska's Unemployment Insurance Combined Tax Rates

Source: https://dol.nebraska.gov/webdocs/Resources/Items/2026%20UI%20guide%20to%20understanding.pdf

Last checked: 2026-08-26

Construction employers start at 5.40% against 1.25% for everyone else, so use the construction figure on a construction payroll. An employer's category sets both the rate and which wage base applies and it can change each year.

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory rating state; no state fund, coverage written entirely through private carriers using NCCI class codes.

Nebraska workers' compensation insurance rates and class codes are set through the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) advisory rate-making process, the same system used in most non-independent-bureau states. Nebraska does not operate a state workers' compensation fund; coverage is written exclusively by private insurance carriers using NCCI-published loss costs and class codes.

Citation: NCCI Proof of Coverage State Guide, Nebraska

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/DR_ProofofCoverageState_NE.aspx

Prevailing wage law

Nebraska has no general state prevailing-wage law for public works; the U.S. Department of Labor lists it among the states without one.

Nebraska does not maintain a general state prevailing wage law for state and local public works contracts. Only the federal Davis-Bacon Act applies and only to federally funded or assisted work.

Citation: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, State Prevailing Wage Laws summary

Source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages

Some compliance sites mention a rule for school district projects over $100,000. No current Nebraska statute or agency page supports that figure, so do not rely on it.

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Modified comparative fault, recovery barred at 50% or more fault

Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault and barred once the worker is 50% or more at fault. A worker exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09 (effect on recovery); § 25-21,185.07 et seq. (comparative negligence generally)

Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-21%2C185.09

Verified against: statute text of Neb. Rev. Stat. s 25-21,185.09

Non-economic damages cap

No general cap on non-economic damages

Most states cap non-economic damages only in medical malpractice actions, which does not reach a third-party construction claim. Economic losses, medical bills, lost wages, future earning capacity, are not capped by these statutes.

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Nebraska has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under federal jurisdiction the citation is issued by an OSHA area office and contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Federal OSHA does not cover state and local government employees, so a public employee injured on a public job falls outside it. Reporting deadlines are a work-related fatality within 8 hours, an inpatient hospitalisation, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours. For a construction claim the inspection file matters more than the citation: photographs, measurements, witness statements and the inspector's narrative are usually obtainable and are often the best contemporaneous record of the site.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667 (State Plan roster)

Source: https://www.osha.gov/stateplans

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

OSHA violations are evidence of negligence in Nebraska, not conclusive proof

The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that OSHA violations constitute evidence, not conclusive proof, of negligence.

Citation: Orduna v. Total Construction Services, 713 N.W.2d 471, 479 (Neb. 2006)

Source: https://storage.googleapis.com/jnl-bcls-j-bclr-files/journals/1/articles/232/63a30c0a100a2.pdf

Third-party contribution against the employer

Statutory employer status is a real issue in Nebraska under § 48-116, with Rogers v. Hansen the leading case.

Third-party claims otherwise turn on control, notice, negligent undertaking, product defect and the compensation lien. See the distinctive doctrine entry below for the regular trade test.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§48-101 et seq., §48-116; Rogers v. Hansen, 211 Neb. 132, 317 N.W.2d 905 (1982).

Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=48-116

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Unusually narrow: Nebraska does NOT recognize a general intentional-tort exception. Even intentional concealment or intentional infliction of injury still falls within exclusivity. The only real carve-out is for willful, unprovoked physical aggression by a co-employee, officer, or director.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that allegations an employer intentionally concealed workplace dangers, intentionally inflicted an injury, or intentionally concealed the nature of a resulting occupational disease still fall within the Act's exclusivity , Nebraska is among a small minority of states without a general intentional-tort exception. The narrow statutory carve-out that does exist covers only injury or death proximately caused by willful, unprovoked physical aggression by a co-employee, officer, or director. In practice exclusivity takes the direct employer off the tort table entirely, whatever the OSHA file shows. The claim runs against the other parties on the site: the general contractor, the owner, another subcontractor, an equipment manufacturer. The employer or its carrier then asserts a lien against whatever the worker recovers from those parties, so the figure the worker actually keeps is the recovery less the lien, the fee and the costs. Whether the lien is reduced for the cost of obtaining the recovery is a separate state question worth asking early, because it moves the net more than most people expect.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-101 et seq., § 48-109, § 48-111, § 48-148; Abbott v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 907, 443 N.W.2d 591 (1989).

Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=48-101

Distinctive state doctrine

Regular trade statutory-employer test, essentially no employer intentional-tort exception, plus a co-employee exception limited to willful and unprovoked physical aggression

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116 makes a person or business that requires another business to perform work, without requiring that business to carry workers' compensation insurance, liable as a statutory employer, but only for work that is part of the hiring party's regular trade rather than an occasional task incidental to the business. Compensation remains the exclusive remedy even where the employer's conduct was gross, wanton, willful, deliberate, intentional, reckless or malicious. One reported example involved a supervisor directing an employee into a grain bin without safety equipment in violation of several OSHA regulations. The worker was engulfed and killed, the employer was fined and the family's only remedy was still compensation. Nebraska's separate co-employee exception reaches only injury or death proximately caused by the willful and unprovoked physical aggression of a co-employee, officer or director. Nebraska does not recognise the dual capacity doctrine.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-109, 48-111, 48-116; Hassan v. Trident Seafood, 302 Neb. 44 (2019) (regular-trade test); Johnston v. State, 219 Neb. 457 (1985) (dual capacity rejected)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2019/s-18-255.html