McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141

Richard and Michelle McCaulley acted as their own general contractor and hired separate subcontractors for discrete work on their Omaha home (roofing, plumbing, masonry, flooring, doors/windows, waterproofing, retaining wall).
The homeowners moved into the house in late February/early March 2008 and filed a construction-defect suit on February 7, 2012 alleging negligence and breach of warranty against multiple subcontractors.
Each defendant moved for summary judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-223 (four-year limitations), asserting the limitations period began when that subcontractor substantially completed its work.
The district court granted summary judgment for seven subcontractors, concluding the 4-year period ran from each contractor’s substantial completion date; it also denied the homeowners’ oral request to file a fourth amended complaint adding a breach-of-express-warranty-to-repair claim.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: (1) the statute of limitations began to run on each subcontractor’s substantial completion date given separate contracts and no general contractor; (2) denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion due to undue delay and unfair prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the § 25-223 four-year limitations period begin to run for construction-defect claims against subcontractors?	The period should run from substantial completion of the entire house (single project).	The period runs from substantial completion of each subcontractor’s individual project (separate contracts).	Runs from each contractor’s substantial completion where homeowners acted as their own GC and contracted separately.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend to add a breach-of-express-warranty-to-repair claim?	Leave should be allowed (relying on language in Adams concurrence).	Amendment was unduly delayed, prejudicial, and possibly futile given pending summary-judgment evidence.	Denial affirmed: amendment would cause undue delay and unfair prejudice; no abuse of discretion shown.

Fuelberth v. Heartland Heating & Air Conditioning, 307 Neb. 1002, 951 N.W.2d 758 (Neb. 2020) (discusses divisible contracts and that limitations run from substantial completion of each divisible project)
Adams v. Manchester Park, 291 Neb. 978, 871 N.W.2d 215 (Neb. 2015) (substantial-completion rule for homebuilder/general-contractor claims; concurrence noted warranty-to-repair accrual nuances)
Witherspoon v. Sides Constr. Co., 219 Neb. 117, 362 N.W.2d 35 (Neb. 1985) (limitations runs from substantial completion of home for defective-construction claims against general contractor)
Murphy v. Spelts-Schultz Lumber Co., 240 Neb. 275, 481 N.W.2d 422 (Neb. 1992) (applies § 25-223 to defective construction claims against builders/contractors)
InterCall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801, 824 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 2012) (leave to amend pleadings "freely given when justice so requires" and limits on denial such as undue delay or prejudice)