Thе issue involved in this • appeal is whether plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendant is barred by *432 section 25-222, R. S. Supp., 1972, the professional negligence statute of limitations. The trial court so found. We affirm.
Defendant was employed by plaintiff in December 1967, to plan an employee benefit program to include a retirement program for plаintiff’s employees. On January 4, 1968, defendant presented a suggested employee benefit plan containing an insuranсe retirement program to the exclusion of the provisions of the federal Social Security Act. Plaintiff instituted the plan on April 1, 1968. On June 3, 1970, it was determined that plaintiff was bound by the federal Social Security Act and was required to make contributions to the social security program. In January of 1972, plaintiff paid $41,110.94 to the federal government. This represented the amount which should have been withheld from the payroll, and interest.
The present action was commenced June 8, 1973. The petition alleged defendant-appellee negligently and erroneously professionally advised plaintiff thаt it was unnecessary to contribute to the social security program if the insurance retirement plan was instituted. Defendant demurred to the petition, alleging the action was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 25-222, R. S. Supp., 1972. The Distriсt Court sustained the demurrer.
Section 25-222, R. S. Supp., 1972, was passed by the Legislature on March 17, 1972, signed by the Governor on March 21, 1972, and became effective July 6, 1972. It provides as follows: “Any action to recover damages based on alleged prоfessional negligence or upon alleged breach of warranty in rendering or failure to render professionаl services shall be commenced within two years next after the alleged act or omission in rendering or failure to render professional services providing the basis for such action; Provided, if the cause of action is not discovеred and could not be reasonably *433 discovered within such two-year period, then the action may be commenсed within one year from the date of such discovery or from the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier; and provided further, that in no event may any action be commenced to recover damages for professional negligence or breach of warranty in rendering or failure to render professional services more than ten years after the date of rendering or failure to render such professional service which provides the basis for the cause of action.”
Previous to the enactment of section 25-222, R. S. Supp., 1972, the statutory limitation period was 4 years. Our law is well settled. A statute of limitations which does not impair existing substаntive rights but only alters the procedural enforcement of those rights operates on all proceedings instituted after its passage, whether the rights accrued before or after that date. This has been the law since Horbach v. Miller (1875),
Plaintiff’s рrogram was instituted on April 1, 1968. The statute of limitations began to run on plaintiff’s cause of action at least by June 3, 1970. That was thе date it was finally determined that plaintiff was. obligated to contribute to the federal social security program оn behalf of its employees. Suit was filed herein June 8, 1973. This was more than 5 years after the program was instituted and 3 years and 5 days subsequent to the date any alleged negligence was discovered.
Section 25-222, R. S. Supp., 1972, was passed and signed by the Gоvernor within the 2-year period which expired June 3, 1972, or more than 1 month before the act became effectivе. This action was filed 11 months after the effective date of the act, and 15 months after its passage. The question prеsented is whether the-action was instituted within a reasonable period of time from the passage of the act.
In Horbach v. Miller,
Affirmed.