McCaulley v. C L Enters., 959 N.W.2d 225

Richard and Michelle McCaulley acted as their own general contractors for a home built beginning in 2006 and moved in late February/early March 2008.
They contracted separately with multiple specialty contractors (plumbing, roofing, masonry, hardwood floors, doors/windows, waterproofing, retaining wall) rather than hiring a single general builder.
The McCaulleys sued on February 7, 2012, alleging negligence against seven contractors and breach of warranty against four, asserting defective workmanship and latent defects.
Each contractor moved for summary judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-223 (four-year limitations), claiming the limitations period ran from the date that contractor substantially completed its work; the McCaulleys argued the clock began when the entire home was substantially complete.
The district court granted summary judgment for the contractors (finding each claim time barred based on each contractor’s substantial-completion date) and denied the McCaulleys’ oral motion to file a fourth amended complaint to add an express warranty-to-repair claim; the McCaulleys appealed.

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 individual contractors?	McCaulley: Limitations run from substantial completion of the entire house (moved in 2008).	Contractors: Limitations run from each contractor’s substantial completion of its separate project.	Court: Where owner contracted separately with specialty contractors and work completion dates are independent, limitations run from each contractor’s substantial completion; claims were time barred.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend to add an express warranty-to-repair claim?	McCaulley: Leave should be granted (relying on a concurrence in Adams suggesting such a claim may accrue later).	Contractors: Amendment was untimely, prejudicial, and futile given summary-judgment posture.	Court: Denial affirmed—request was unduly delayed and prejudicial; no abuse of discretion.

Fuelberth v. Heartland Heating & Air Conditioning, 307 Neb. 1002 (2020) (explains divisible vs. indivisible contracts and applies substantial-completion accrual rule when projects may be separate)
Adams v. Manchester Park, 291 Neb. 978 (2015) (applies substantial-completion rule to homebuilder; concurrence noted later-accruing warranty-to-repair theory)
Murphy v. Spelts-Schultz Lumber Co., 240 Neb. 275 (1992) (limitations runs from substantial completion for defective construction claims)
Witherspoon v. Sides Constr. Co., 219 Neb. 117 (1985) (same rule: accrual at substantial completion)
Durre v. Wilkinson Development, 285 Neb. 880 (2013) (applies § 25-223 to construction defect claims)