Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (2026)

Employer; coverage of act; excepted occupations; election to provide compensation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to the State of Nebraska, to every governmental agency created by the state, and, except as provided in this section, to every resident employer in this state and nonresident employer performing work in this state who employs one or more employees in the regular trade, business, profession, or vocation of such employer.

(2) The act shall not apply to:

(a) A railroad company engaged in interstate or foreign commerce;

(b) Service performed by a worker who is a household domestic servant in a private residence;

(c) Service performed by a worker when performed for an employer who is engaged in an agricultural operation and employs only related employees;

(d) Service performed by a worker when performed for an employer who is engaged in an agricultural operation and employs unrelated employees unless such service is performed for an employer who during any calendar year employs ten or more unrelated, full-time employees, whether in one or more locations, on each working day for thirteen calendar weeks, whether or not such weeks are consecutive. The act shall apply to an employer thirty days after the thirteenth such week; and

(e) Service performed by a person who is engaged in an agricultural operation, or performed by his or her related employees, when the service performed is (i) occasional and (ii) for another person who is engaged in an agricultural operation who has provided or will provide reciprocal or similar service.

(3) If the employer is the state or any governmental agency created by the state, the exemption from the act under subdivision (2)(d) of this section does not apply.

(4) If the act applies to an employer because the employer meets the requirements of subdivision (2)(d) of this section, all unrelated employees shall be covered under the act and such employees' wages shall be considered for premium purposes.

(5) If an employer to whom the act applies because the employer meets the requirements of subdivision (2)(d) of this section subsequently does not employ ten or more unrelated, full-time employees, such employer shall continue to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for the employees for the remainder of the calendar year and for the next full calendar year. When the required coverage period has expired, such employer may elect to return to exempt status by (a) posting, continuously in a conspicuous place at the employment locations of the employees for a period of at least ninety days, a written or printed notice stating that the employer will no longer carry workers' compensation insurance for the employees and the date such insurance will cease and (b) thereafter no longer carrying a policy of workers' compensation insurance. Failure to provide notice in accordance with this subsection voids an employer's attempt to return to exempt status.

(6) An employer who is exempt from the act under subsection (2) of this section may elect to bring the employees of such employer under the act. Such election is made by the employer obtaining a policy of workers' compensation insurance covering such employees. Such policy shall be obtained from a corporation, association, or organization authorized and licensed to transact the business of workers' compensation insurance in this state. If such an exempt employer procures a policy of workers' compensation insurance which is in full force and effect at the time of an accident to an employee of such employer, such procurement is conclusive proof of the employer's and employee's election to be bound by the act. Such an exempt employer who has procured a policy of workers' compensation insurance may elect to return to exempt status by (a) posting, continuously in a conspicuous place at the employment locations of the employees for a period of at least ninety days, a written or printed notice stating that the employer will no longer carry workers' compensation insurance for the employees and the date such insurance will cease and (b) thereafter no longer carrying a policy of workers' compensation insurance. Failure to provide notice in accordance with this subsection voids an employer's attempt to return to exempt status.

(7) Every employer exempted under subdivision (2)(d) of this section who does not elect to provide workers' compensation insurance under subsection (6) of this section shall give all unrelated employees at the time of hiring or at any time more than thirty calendar days prior to the time of injury the following written notice which shall be signed by the unrelated employee and retained by the employer: "In this employment you will not be covered by the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act and you will not be compensated under the act if you are injured on the job or suffer an occupational disease. You should plan accordingly." Failure to provide the notice required by this subsection subjects an employer to liability under and inclusion in the act for any unrelated employee to whom such notice was not given.

(8) An exclusion from coverage in any health, accident, or other insurance policy covering a person employed by an employer who is exempt from the act under this section which provides that coverage under the health, accident, or other insurance policy does not apply if such person is entitled to workers' compensation coverage is void as to such person if such employer has not elected to bring the employees of such employer within the act as provided in subsection (6) of this section.

(9) For purposes of this section:

(a) Agricultural operation means (i) the cultivation of land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit, or other horticultural products or (ii) the ownership, keeping, or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products;

(b) Full-time employee means a person who is employed to work one-half or more of the regularly scheduled hours during each pay period; and

(c) Related employee means a spouse of an employer and an employee related to the employer within the third degree by blood or marriage. Relationship by blood or marriage within the third degree includes parents, grandparents, great grandparents, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, and spouses of the same. If the employer is a partnership, limited liability company, or corporation in which all of the partners, members, or shareholders are related within the third degree by blood or marriage, then related employee means any employee related to any such partner, member, or shareholder within the third degree by blood or marriage.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases, 1930–2020 · leading case: Larsen v. D B Feedyards, Inc., 648 N.W.2d 306 (Neb. 2002).
Larsen v. D B Feedyards, Inc., 648 N.W.2d 306 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 62× “Employers operating businesses performing commercial services primarily for others, even though the task performed may commonly occur on a farm or a ranch, do not employ "farm or ranch laborers" within the meaning of Nebraska Revised Statute, Section 48-106. *309 This decision…”
Morin v. Indus. Manpower, 687 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “, and the review panel erred in affirming, that (1) there was jurisdiction in Nebraska to hear Morin’s workers’ compensation claim, due to the out-of-state nature of this case; (2) there was coverage for this claim under Nebraska workers’ compensation law; (3) there was any…”
Martinez v. Cmr Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “6 § 48-106(1). 7 § 48-106(6). 8 See § 48-116.”
Merrick v. Fischer, Rounds & Assocs., 305 Neb. 230 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 7× “Merrick alleged that Western Hay was required to carry workers’ compensation insurance pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (Reissue 2010) and that such insur- ance would have provided coverage for his injuries.”
Hansmeier v. Hansmeier, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 742 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “The letter dated February 28, 2012, from Farmers Mutual of Nebraska to Scott and Karie regarding the claim under their policy for Heble's accident, sets forth provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (Reissue 2010) regarding workers' compensation and includes the relevant…”
Jensen v. Floair, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 19 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 7× “§ 48-114 (Reissue 1978) with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (Reissue 1978). The purpose of amending § 48-115(2) to include subsection (c) is obvious from the legislative history.”
Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. Railways Comm'n, 502 U.S. 197 (1991). · cites it 2× “§ 23:1037 (West 1985); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (1) (1988). Counsel for respondent in this case conceded during oral argument that petitioner may be precluded from seeking an alternative remedy under state law for his injuries, because of a like exclusion in South Carolina law.”
Aboytes-Mosqueda v. LFA Inc., 306 Neb. 277 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 48-115 (Reissue 2010) provides the statu- tory definition for employee. Applicable here is § 48-115(2), which states in relevant part: “Every person in the service of an employer who is engaged in any trade, occupation, business, or profession as described in section 48-106…”
Leppert v. Parker, 352 N.W.2d 180 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 10× “This case presents to the court the question of whether one who hires an individual to train horses on the employer’s farm or ranch is an employer of farm or ranch laborers within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (2) (Reissue 1978), so as to be exempt from the provisions…”
Keith v. Wilson, 84 N.W.2d 192 (Neb. 1957). · cites it 24× “Prior to the incidents involved here he elected to cause himself to become an employer within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and to cause his operation to be controlled particularly by section 48-106, R.R.S.1943, which is a part of the workmen's compensation law,…”
Soto v. State, 693 N.W.2d 491 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 2× “§§ 48-192 through *342 48-1,109 (Reissue 2004), the Legislature set forth “uniform procedures for the bringing of workers’ compensation claims against the state” which “shall be used to the exclusion of all others.”
Kruid v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 770 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “Section 48-106 sets forth certain exclusions, none of which are applicable to the instant case.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106(1) — 10 cases
Morin v. Indus. Manpower, 687 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004). “, and the review panel erred in affirming, that (1) there was jurisdiction in Nebraska to hear Morin’s workers’ compensation claim, due to the out-of-state nature of this case; (2) there was coverage for this claim under Nebraska workers’ compensation law; (3) there was any…”
Martinez v. Cmr Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618 (Neb. 2019). “6 § 48-106(1). 7 § 48-106(6). 8 See § 48-116.”
Jensen v. Floair, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 19 (Neb. 1982). “§ 48-114 (Reissue 1978) with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (Reissue 1978). The purpose of amending § 48-115(2) to include subsection (c) is obvious from the legislative history.”
Larsen v. D B Feedyards, Inc., 648 N.W.2d 306 (Neb. 2002). “Employers operating businesses performing commercial services primarily for others, even though the task performed may commonly occur on a farm or a ranch, do not employ "farm or ranch laborers" within the meaning of Nebraska Revised Statute, Section 48-106. *309 This decision…”
Kruid v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 770 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009). “Section 48-106 sets forth certain exclusions, none of which are applicable to the instant case.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106(2) — 7 cases
Larsen v. D B Feedyards, Inc., 648 N.W.2d 306 (Neb. 2002). “Employers operating businesses performing commercial services primarily for others, even though the task performed may commonly occur on a farm or a ranch, do not employ "farm or ranch laborers" within the meaning of Nebraska Revised Statute, Section 48-106. *309 This decision…”
Leppert v. Parker, 352 N.W.2d 180 (Neb. 1984). “This case presents to the court the question of whether one who hires an individual to train horses on the employer’s farm or ranch is an employer of farm or ranch laborers within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (2) (Reissue 1978), so as to be exempt from the provisions…”
Morin v. Indus. Manpower, 687 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004). “, and the review panel erred in affirming, that (1) there was jurisdiction in Nebraska to hear Morin’s workers’ compensation claim, due to the out-of-state nature of this case; (2) there was coverage for this claim under Nebraska workers’ compensation law; (3) there was any…”
Nussbaum v. Wright, 350 N.W.2d 559 (Neb. 1984).
Kramer v. DeNoyer, 484 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 1992).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106(2)(d) — 1 case
Merrick v. Fischer, Rounds & Assocs., 305 Neb. 230 (Neb. 2020). “Merrick alleged that Western Hay was required to carry workers’ compensation insurance pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (Reissue 2010) and that such insur- ance would have provided coverage for his injuries.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106(3) — 2 cases
Brown v. Leavitt Lane Farm, 340 N.W.2d 4 (Neb. 1983).
Imus v. Bead Mountain Ranch, Inc., 160 N.W.2d 171 (Neb. 1968).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106(6) — 3 cases
Martinez v. Cmr Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618 (Neb. 2019). “6 § 48-106(1). 7 § 48-106(6). 8 See § 48-116.”
Martinez v. CMR Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618 (Neb. 2019).
Martinez v. CMR Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618 (Neb. 2019).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106(7) — 3 cases
Hansmeier v. Hansmeier, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 742 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “The letter dated February 28, 2012, from Farmers Mutual of Nebraska to Scott and Karie regarding the claim under their policy for Heble's accident, sets forth provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (Reissue 2010) regarding workers' compensation and includes the relevant…”
Merrick v. Fischer, Rounds & Assocs., 305 Neb. 230 (Neb. 2020). “Merrick alleged that Western Hay was required to carry workers’ compensation insurance pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106 (Reissue 2010) and that such insur- ance would have provided coverage for his injuries.”
Hansmeier v. Hansmeier, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 742 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
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.