Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02 (2026)
Prejudgment interest; accrual; when; conditions
✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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, 929 N.W.2d 40 (Neb. 2019).
Weyh v. Gottsch, 929 N.W.2d 40 (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).”
AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs, 948 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. 2020). “Supreme Court set forth the following standard for prospective application of a substantive change in law: First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied .”
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…”
Albrecht v. Fettig, 932 N.W.2d 331 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). “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). “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., 959 N.W.2d 251 (Neb. 2021). “67 All three of these statutory provisions establish different criteria for the recovery of prejudgment interest, and none makes the recovery of prejudgment interest contingent on proof of another.”
Cheloha v. Cheloha, 582 N.W.2d 291 (Neb. 1998). “(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). “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, 921 N.W.2d 615 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “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, 957 N.W.2d 481 (Neb. 2021). “” The court awarded the RRT prejudgment interest in the amount of approximately $256 million for the period of January 19, 2015, through August 12, 2019.”
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(1): 12 cases
Weyh v. Gottsch, 929 N.W.2d 40 (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, 957 N.W.2d 481 (Neb. 2021). “” The court awarded the RRT prejudgment interest in the amount of approximately $256 million for the period of January 19, 2015, through August 12, 2019.”
McGill Restoration v. Lion Place Condo. Assn., 959 N.W.2d 251 (Neb. 2021). “67 All three of these statutory provisions establish different criteria for the recovery of prejudgment interest, and none makes the recovery of prejudgment interest contingent on proof of another.”
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
Weyh v. Gottsch, 929 N.W.2d 40 (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.”
Albrecht v. Fettig, 932 N.W.2d 331 (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, 948 N.W.2d 212 (Neb. 2020). “Supreme Court set forth the following standard for prospective application of a substantive change in law: First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied .”
Echo Grp. v. Tradesmen Internat., 980 N.W.2d 869 (Neb. 2022). “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., 959 N.W.2d 251 (Neb. 2021). “67 All three of these statutory provisions establish different criteria for the recovery of prejudgment interest, and none makes the recovery of prejudgment interest contingent on proof of another.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-103.02(l)(a): 1 case
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
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…”
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.