Ecker v. E & A Consulting Group, 924 N.W.2d 671

Homeowners (Ecker and Sledge) sued E&A Consulting Group (E&A), Sanitary Improvement District No. 237 (SID No. 237), and the City of La Vista after basements flooded during a June 20–21, 2014 storm.
E&A’s 2010 drainage study recommended a berm to protect against a 100-year storm; the recommended berm elevation (1,082.5 ft) exceeded the 100-year flood elevation (1,081.9 ft).
The constructed berm had low spots (about 1,081.4–1,081.6 ft) and E&A’s design mistakenly assumed a round BNSF culvert rather than an elliptical culvert.
Experts agreed the June 2014 storm exceeded a 100-year event and basin water reached about 1,083.7 ft—higher than the berm’s recommended elevation.
District court granted summary judgment to E&A, SID No. 237, and the City; homeowners appealed, arguing factual disputes and procedural noncompliance with summary judgment filing rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on negligence	Homeowners: E&A/SID negligently designed/constructed berm and that caused flooding	Defendants: Storm exceeded 100-year event and was the proximate cause, not any design/construction defect	Held for defendants: No genuine dispute on proximate cause; storm was the cause
Whether E&A and SID failed to comply with § 25-1332(2) by not citing record/supporting facts	Homeowners: Defendants’ summary judgment submissions lacked required citations, so prima facie burden unmet	Defendants: Homeowners failed to timely object below; trial court had discretion; substantial record supported motions	Held: Issue waived for appeal (no timely objection); district court discretion noted
Whether failure to file briefs (local rule) defeated summary judgment	Homeowners: Defendants didn’t file supporting briefs as required	Defendants: No timely objection; procedural discretion of court; merits supported summary judgment	Held: Waived on appeal; court observed discretion to waive rules
Whether City breached duty to enforce 100-year storm regulation and that breach proximately caused damage	Homeowners: City should have ensured compliance with 100-year storm requirements	City: Even if breach, storm exceeded 100-year design and was proximate cause	Held: Summary judgment for City because storm—not any regulatory breach—was proximate cause

Ewers v. Saunders County, 298 Neb. 944 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co., 297 Neb. 682 (issues raised first on appeal are disregarded)
State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927 (failure to timely object waives appellate error)
Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027 (district court may waive its rules in appropriate circumstances)
Eadie v. Leise Properties, 300 Neb. 141 (elements of negligence explained)
Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (proximate-cause analysis where extreme storm was determinative)