Nebraska Supreme Court upholds subrogation waiver clause between owner and contractor when a television tower under construction collapsed, also the contractor was liable for damage the construction work and other property to the subrogated insurance company, even when the subrogated insurance company complained that gross negligence caused the accident. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Entrex Comm. Servs., S-06-1452, 275 Neb. 702 "the danger with exculpatory clauses is that a party injured by another’s gross negligence will be unable to recover its losses. But such danger is not present in cases involving waivers of subrogation because the waiver only applies to losses covered by insurance, so “there is no risk that an injured party will be left uncompensated.”..Waivers of subrogation serve in avoiding disruption of construction projects and reducing litigation among parties to complicated construction contracts. Concluding that waivers of subrogation cannot be enforced against gross negligence claims would undermine this underlying policy by encouraging costly litigation to contest whether a party’s conduct was grossly negligent. Therefore, we conclude that “public policy favors enforcement of waivers of subrogation even in the face of gross negligence [claims]..the majority approach furthers the policy underlying the use of waiver of subrogation clauses in construction contracts. That court explained that a waiver of subrogation is useful in construction contracts because it avoids disrupting the project and eliminates the need for lawsuits.37 The majority approach furthers this purpose. Applying the waiver to all losses covered by the owner’s property insurance policy eliminates litigation over liability issues and whether the claimed loss was damage to the Work or non-Work property."

Nebraska Insurance Guaranty Act bars all subrogation claims against insureds unless they are outside the scope of the insolvent insurer's policy. Car owner sued dealership for damages arising from repairs the plaintiff alleged were faulty. The car owner paid his $1000 deductible and his own insurer picked up the rest. The dealership's insurer became insolvent after the Plaintiffs started the lawsuit and the district court dismissed the action under the provisions of the Nebraska Insurance Guaranty Act that prohibits subrogation actions against responsible defendants. Nebraska Supreme Court agrees that the plaintiffs could not file action directly against the dealership unless the accident was beyond the coverage of the garage policy and material issues of fact prevented summary judgment for the dealership on coverage. Alsobrook v. Jim Earp Chrysler-Plymouth, S-06-383, 274 Neb. 374"Section 44-2403(4)(b) prohibits subrogation claims from being asserted against an insured of an insolvent insurer, except to the extent that the claim is outside of or in excess of the insurance policy issued by the insolvent insurer. T he district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Alsobrook’s entire claim, in excess of the deductible, is barred by the A ct"