Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (2026)

Prejudgment interest; accrual; when; conditions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Except as provided in section 45-103.04, interest as provided in section 45-103 shall accrue on the unpaid balance of unliquidated claims from the date of the plaintiff's first offer of settlement which is exceeded by the judgment until the entry of judgment if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The offer is made in writing upon the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, to allow judgment to be taken in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the offer;

(b) The offer is made not less than ten days prior to the commencement of the trial;

(c) A copy of the offer and proof of delivery to the defendant in the form of a receipt signed by the party or his or her attorney is filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is pending; and

(d) The offer is not accepted prior to trial or within thirty days of the date of the offer, whichever occurs first.

(2) Except as provided in section 45-103.04, interest as provided in section 45-104 shall accrue on the unpaid balance of liquidated claims from the date the cause of action arose until the entry of judgment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 74 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 (Neb. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 77× “On that issue, Gottsch argues that all requests for prejudgment interest must comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2010), and he contends it was error to award prejudgment interest under § 45-104 without also finding Weyh's claim was liquidated under § 45-103.”

Folgers Architects Ltd. v. Kerns, 633 N.W.2d 114 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 30× “The Court of Appeals held that FAL was not entitled to prejudgment interest on any project because FAL failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 1998).”

AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs, 307 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 14× “Genesis contends that it would be inequitable to apply Weyh retroactively, because liti- gants have operated under the belief that prejudgment interest under § 45-104 was not allowed for unliquidated claims except when Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2010) applied.”

Wortman by & Through Wortman v. Unger, 578 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 30× “The sole issue on appeal is whether a written settlement offer communicated on Wortman’s behalf prior to the commencement of this action complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Cum. Supp. 1996) so as to entitle Wortman to prejudgment interest computed from the date of the…”

Albrecht v. Fettig, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 371 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “Although our rationale varies somewhat from that utilized by the district court, we agree with the court's conclusion.”

Echo Grp. v. Tradesmen Internat., 980 N.W.2d 869 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 19× “Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 (Reissue 2021) provide alternate and independent means of recovering prejudgment interest.”

McGill Restoration v. Lion Place Condo. Assn., 309 Neb. 202 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 10× “66 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-103.02 (1) and (2) and 45-104 (Reissue 2010) provide alternate and independent means of recov- ering prejudgment interest.”

Cheloha v. Cheloha, 582 N.W.2d 291 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 13× “(b) Prejudgment Interest Sophia asserts that the trial court wrongly applied an old version of Nebraska’s prejudgment interest statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 1993), in denying her request for an award of prejudgment interest.”

Knox v. Cook, 446 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 12× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 1988) prescribes the conditions for allowance of prejudgment interest on all causes of action accruing on or after January 1, 1987, subject to the exclusions in Neb.”

Farm & Garden Ctr., L.L.C. v. Kennedy, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 576 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 17× “2d 462 , 465 (2010) ( § 45-104 applied to funds held under escrow agreement; "prejudgment interest accrues on the unpaid balance of liquidated claims arising from an instrument in writing from the date the cause of action arose until the entry of judgment, pursuant to Neb. Rev.…”

Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan, 308 Neb. 851 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 9× “The court found “the procedural requirements set forth in § 45-103.02, when viewed in the context of § 21-20,166, do not make sense and are clearly not applicable.”

R & D Props., LLC v. Altech Const. Co., 776 N.W.2d 493 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 5× “We conclude that because the Legislature has seen fit to provide for prejudgment interest in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2004), the type of recovery sought by R & D in this case is not permitted.”

Show all 74 citing cases →

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02(1) — 12 cases

Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 (Neb. 2019). “On that issue, Gottsch argues that all requests for prejudgment interest must comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2010), and he contends it was error to award prejudgment interest under § 45-104 without also finding Weyh's claim was liquidated under § 45-103.”

Folgers Architects Ltd. v. Kerns, 633 N.W.2d 114 (Neb. 2001). “The Court of Appeals held that FAL was not entitled to prejudgment interest on any project because FAL failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 1998).”

Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan, 308 Neb. 851 (Neb. 2021). “The court found “the procedural requirements set forth in § 45-103.02, when viewed in the context of § 21-20,166, do not make sense and are clearly not applicable.”

McGill Restoration v. Lion Place Condo. Assn., 309 Neb. 202 (Neb. 2021). “66 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-103.02 (1) and (2) and 45-104 (Reissue 2010) provide alternate and independent means of recov- ering prejudgment interest.”

R & D Props., LLC v. Altech Const. Co., 776 N.W.2d 493 (Neb. 2009). “We conclude that because the Legislature has seen fit to provide for prejudgment interest in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2004), the type of recovery sought by R & D in this case is not permitted.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02(2) — 23 cases

Albrecht v. Fettig, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 371 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “Although our rationale varies somewhat from that utilized by the district court, we agree with the court's conclusion.”

AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs, 307 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2020). “Genesis contends that it would be inequitable to apply Weyh retroactively, because liti- gants have operated under the belief that prejudgment interest under § 45-104 was not allowed for unliquidated claims except when Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2010) applied.”

Echo Grp. v. Tradesmen Internat., 980 N.W.2d 869 (Neb. 2022). “Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 (Reissue 2021) provide alternate and independent means of recovering prejudgment interest.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02(l)(a) — 1 case

Wortman by & Through Wortman v. Unger, 578 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. 1998). “The sole issue on appeal is whether a written settlement offer communicated on Wortman’s behalf prior to the commencement of this action complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (Cum. Supp. 1996) so as to entitle Wortman to prejudgment interest computed from the date of the…”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02(l)(d) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.