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

Verified directly against the Nebraska Judicial Branch's judgment interest rate page, which lists 5.970% effective July 16, 2026 as the current certified rate, and confirmed the underlying statutory text at nebraskalegislature.gov for both 45-103 (floating rate mechanism) and 45-104 (12% fixed rate on written instruments).

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.

The Nebraska Supreme Court in Henn v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (2017) held that ACV may include depreciation of labor, and a related federal decision (Olson v. Le Mars Mutual Insurance Co.) treated labor depreciation as permissible when consistent with policy language. These are judicial decisions interpreting existing policy language and common-law ACV principles, not an insurance-code statute or NAIC-style regulation. No section of Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 44 (Insurance) or the Nebraska Department of Insurance's rules and regulations index was found to independently define ACV calculation methodology or to address labor depreciation.

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

This is a case-law rule (Henn v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 295 Neb. 859 (2017)), which belongs in the site's existing common-law acv field, not this statutory layer. No statute or regulation layer was found to exist on top of it.

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 specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, the Nebraska Supreme Court held an insurer may depreciate labor when calculating ACV; however, under an ACV-only policy, or where the as-repaired ACV does not exceed the ACV at time of loss, labor depreciation is only permitted if expressly provided for in the policy.

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/

RESEARCHED from scratch. No holdback-timing statute found; the labor-depreciation holdings are from a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey, not independently re-verified against the primary opinions in this pass.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

CORRECTED: Nebraska DOES have real authority -- the prior 'None found' assessment was incorrect. No-damages-for-delay clauses are enforceable with exceptions for owner arbitrary/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

RESEARCHED via a comprehensive 50-state matrix (Woods Aitken LLP) specifically on no-damage-for-delay clause enforceability, covering all 50 states with primary citations. CORRECTED: prior entry incorrectly said 'None found' -- Nebraska has real, on-point authority.

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.

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

Nebraska's category-based system and two-tier wage base ($9,000/$24,000) are unusual and should be reconfirmed each year directly against the Nebraska Department of Labor's Combined Tax Rates page, since an employer's category (and therefore both rate and wage base) can change annually. Confirmed exactly against the official Nebraska Department of Labor 2026 UI guide (dol.nebraska.gov).

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 is listed by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division among the roughly two dozen states that do not maintain a general state-level prevailing wage ('Little Davis-Bacon') statute applicable to state and local public works contracts. Only the federal Davis-Bacon Act, which applies to federally funded or assisted contracts, governs prevailing wages on Nebraska construction projects. A narrower rule requiring wage-rate compliance on certain school district projects over $100,000 was identified in older secondary sources, but this could not be verified against a current Nebraska statute or state agency page, so it should be treated as unconfirmed for 2026.

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

The $100,000 school-district threshold mentioned in some third-party compliance sites (dated to 2021) could not be confirmed against a current Nebraska Revised Statutes citation or a Nebraska Department of Labor page; treat that specific figure as unverified rather than relying on it.

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Nebraska has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction.

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

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

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Confirmed evidence, not negligence per se (direct Nebraska Supreme Court citation)

The Nebraska Supreme Court held OSHA violations constitute evidence, not conclusive proof, of negligence (the majority 'some evidence' classification.)

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

Independently confirmed via the BC Law Review national survey as well.

Third-party contribution against the employer

Statutory-employer status is a confirmed, real issue in Nebraska with a case directly on point, though the source doesn't detail the qualifying test.

Third-party claims otherwise turn on control, notice, negligent undertaking, product defect, and the compensation lien.

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

Source: attorney research manual (Construction Injury Law national volumes), self-marked "Draft; verify current law and citator status." Case citations are representative authorities from that manual, not independently re-verified against a citator by ClaimDuke. CORRECTED: the prior citation, "Krueger v. Walters, 238 Neb. 947 (1991)," could not be confirmed. Replaced with Rogers v. Hansen, 211 Neb. 132 (1982) -- Nebraska's actual leading statutory-employer case under §48-116, confirmed real and directly on point, cited by name in the state's own workers' comp compendium.

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.

Citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. Section48-101 et seq., Section48-109, Section48-111, Section48-148; Abbott v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 907, 443 N.W.2d 591 (1989).

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

CORRECTED and RESEARCHED: the prior citation, 'Wendeln v. Beatrice Foods Co., 250 Neb. 846 (1996),' doesn't match -- the real Wendeln case is Wendeln v. Beatrice MANOR (2006), an unrelated wrongful-discharge case. Confirmed Nebraska is a genuine outlier state alongside Alabama, Idaho, and Maine on this doctrine.

Distinctive state doctrine

"Regular trade" statutory-employer test; a third state confirmed with essentially NO employer-directed intentional-tort exception (after Alabama and Maine); even gross, wanton, willful, deliberate, or malicious employer conduct doesn't pierce exclusivity; separately, an unusually narrow co-employee exception limited to willful and unprovoked physical aggression

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116 makes any person, entity, or employer that requires another business to perform work, but fails to require that business to procure workers' comp insurance, liable as a statutory employer; but only for work that constitutes the hiring party's 'regular trade,' not occasional tasks merely incidental to the business. Significantly, Nebraska confirms that an employee's exclusive remedy is workers' comp even where the employer's actions amounted to gross, wanton, willful, deliberate, intentional, reckless, culpable, or malicious negligence; a real example involved a supervisor directing an employee to enter a grain bin without safety equipment (violating multiple OSHA regulations), where the employee was engulfed and killed and OSHA fined the employer, yet the family's exclusive remedy remained workers' comp. This places Nebraska alongside Alabama and Maine as a third state confirmed to have essentially no employer-directed intentional-tort exception at all. Nebraska's separate co-employee exception is unusually narrow: liability applies only where injury or death is proximately caused by the willful and unprovoked physical aggression of a co-employee, officer, or director: a narrower standard than a general intentional-tort exception, and distinct from the employer-itself question above. Nebraska does not recognize 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