Ag Valley Co-op v. Servinsky Engr., 974 N.W.2d 324

Background

Ag Valley's premanufactured Chief Titan CB50 grain bin (assembled July–Nov 2007) collapsed in August 2017; Ag Valley sued in March 2018 alleging defective design, manufacture, and construction.
Parties: Heartland (general contractor/installer), Chief Industries (designed & manufactured main bin components in Nebraska), Johnson System (manufactured a custom "skid loader" door in Michigan), and Servinsky (engineering consultant to Johnson; denied site‑specific involvement).
Ag Valley sued Heartland on a contract/defective‑construction theory and sued Chief, Johnson, and Servinsky on product liability (strict liability and negligence) theories, alleging the skid loader door and its interface with flexible bin walls caused the collapse.
District court granted summary judgment to Servinsky (no evidence of site‑specific involvement), to Heartland under the 10‑year construction statute of repose (§25‑223), and to Chief and Johnson under Nebraska’s 10‑year product statute of repose (§25‑224(2)(a)(i))—the court treated the relevant product as the completed Titan CB50 manufactured in Nebraska.
Ag Valley appealed, primarily arguing (a) Servinsky’s involvement was disputed; (b) Heartland’s claim should be governed by the product statute (§25‑224) not the construction statute (§25‑223); and (c) the court wrongly resolved a factual dispute about what constitutes "the product." The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Servinsky’s involvement in the skid‑door design precluded summary judgment	Servinsky had provided engineering services to Johnson historically and could have designed the door; factual dispute exists	Servinsky submitted affidavit denying any site‑specific design/manufacture or stamping of the project drawings	Summary judgment affirmed; plaintiff’s evidence was speculative and did not controvert Servinsky’s uncontroverted affidavit
Whether Heartland’s claim is governed by contractor statute (§25‑223) or product statute (§25‑224)	Ag Valley argued product statute should apply to manufacturer‑style defects even if incorporated into an improvement	Heartland: general contractor; defective‑construction claims against builders are governed by §25‑223	Court applied §25‑223 to Heartland; claim barred by 10‑year contractor repose
What is "the product" under §25‑224(2)(a): completed system vs. defective component part	Ag Valley: the relevant product was the Michigan‑made skid loader door (a component), so Michigan law or the 4‑year limitation may govern	Chief/Johnson: the product is the completed Titan CB50 as sold (includes original components); manufactured in Nebraska → 10‑year repose applies	Court held "the product" means the completed product placed on the market (including original component parts); Nebraska 10‑year repose controls; claims barred
Whether resolving the product‑definition on summary judgment improperly decided a fact issue	Ag Valley: identifying the relevant product is fact‑dependent and tied to causation	Defendants: product definition is a statutory interpretation question of law	Court treated the issue as statutory construction (question of law) and resolved it for defendants

Key Cases Cited

Bohling v. Bohling, 309 Neb. 625 (Neb. 2021) (summary judgment standard and appellate review of legal issues)
Farber v. Lok‑N‑Logs, Inc., 270 Neb. 356 (Neb. 2005) (applied §25‑224 product repose to manufactured components used in construction)
Witherspoon v. Sides Constr. Co., 219 Neb. 117 (Neb. 1985) (contractor claims governed by construction repose statute)
Pitts v. Genie Indus., 302 Neb. 88 (Neb. 2019) (elements of a product‑liability defect claim)
Divis v. Clarklift of Nebraska, 256 Neb. 384 (Neb. 1999) (treatment of refurbishment and repose renewal issues)
Gillam v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 241 Neb. 414 (Neb. 1992) (effect of product‑liability statute of repose as an independent statutory bar)