923 N.W.2d 789
Neb. Ct. App.2019Background
- AUCRA (Iowa corp.; subsidiary of Nebraska-based Applied) sued E.M. Pizza (California corp.) in Nebraska to collect $483,000 under a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) tied to a workers’ compensation program (EquityComp).
- E.M. Pizza obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Applied in Omaha via a California broker; premiums, payroll reporting, customer service, and policy issuance/underwriting involved Applied’s Omaha office.
- The RPA (a mandatory component of the program) contained an exclusive forum-selection clause requiring suits be brought only in Omaha, Nebraska (Douglas County) federal or state courts.
- E.M. Pizza moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2); the district court found minimum contacts existed but dismissed because exercising jurisdiction would be unfair and unreasonable and, alternatively, the Choice of Forum Act’s convenience requirement was not met.
- AUCRA appealed, arguing Nebraska courts have jurisdiction under Nebraska’s long-arm statute and/or the Choice of Forum Act based on the forum-selection clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska has personal jurisdiction under Nebraska's long-arm statute (due process/minimum contacts and reasonableness) | AUCRA: E.M. Pizza purposefully availed itself of Nebraska by applying for coverage, executing documents, submitting payroll, and directing communications to Applied in Omaha; contacts suffice for jurisdiction. | E.M. Pizza: Contacts (via broker and Applied) are insufficient to justify haling a California corporation into Nebraska; exercise of jurisdiction would be unfair and unreasonable. | Court: Minimum contacts exist, but exercising jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice; dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
| Whether the RPA forum-selection clause confers jurisdiction under the Choice of Forum Act (§ 25-414(1)(b)) | AUCRA: The parties agreed in writing to Nebraska forum; the clause should be enforced to provide jurisdiction. | E.M. Pizza: Even with the clause, Nebraska is not a reasonably convenient forum given California's greater public interest and governing law. | Court: AUCRA failed to make a prima facie showing that Nebraska is a reasonably convenient forum; forum-selection clause does not confer jurisdiction under § 25-414. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nimmer v. Giga Entertainment Media, 298 Neb. 630 (standards for reviewing jurisdictional dismissal)
- VKGS v. Planet Bingo, 285 Neb. 599 (Nebraska long-arm statute construed to fullest constitutional extent)
- RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest Finance, 288 Neb. 318 (long-arm and due process framework)
- Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., 267 Neb. 474 (contacts via third party can support jurisdiction)
- Ameritas Invest. Corp. v. McKinney, 269 Neb. 564 (application of forum non conveniens considerations to Choice of Forum Act)
- Citizens of Humanity v. Applied Underwriters, 299 Neb. 545 (RPA as integral to the insurance program)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (minimum contacts and purposeful availment)
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (effect of forum-selection clauses; private vs. public interest factors)