Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B. Servs. of New York, 297 Neb. 246

Applied Underwriters, Inc. (Applied) and Applied Risk Services, Inc. (ARS) (plaintiffs) are Nebraska entities; S.E.B. Services of New York, Inc. and 20th Century Services of New York, Inc. (S.E.B.) are New York corporations.
S.E.B. entered a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with AUCRAC (a captive insurer not a party here); ARS is identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s “billing agent.”
Applied sued S.E.B. in Nebraska state court asserting (1) breach of a promissory note (count I) and (2) ARS’s claim for breach of the RPA (count II).
After suit, the promissory note was paid in full; S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, and argued plaintiffs lacked standing on the RPA claim.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively as inconvenient forum). On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court directed supplemental briefing and concluded mootness and standing were dispositive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is count I (promissory note claim) moot?	Not moot because debt existed when suit was filed.	Note was paid before hearing; no live controversy.	Moot — note paid; no meaningful relief remained, so count I dismissed.
Do Applied/ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA?	ARS: as AUCRAC’s billing agent it can enforce the RPA; Applied asserted related contractual rights.	S.E.B.: neither plaintiff is a party or authorized agent to enforce the RPA.	No standing: Applied lacks standing; ARS failed to show agency or express authorization to sue under the RPA, so count II dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Was the RPA’s forum-selection/ enforcement language sufficient to grant ARS authority to litigate?	ARS argued RPA’s billing-agent language implies authority to enforce and sue.	S.E.B. pointed to RPA provisions reserving enforcement rights to AUCRAC and limiting benefits to the parties.	RPA expressly reserved enforcement to AUCRAC; billing-agent designation alone did not establish authority to litigate.
Should the court address personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens?	Plaintiffs challenged district court’s dismissal on those grounds.	S.E.B. maintained lack of jurisdiction and inconvenience.	Court did not reach those questions because mootness and lack of standing were dispositive; affirmed dismissal on those grounds.

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (mootness doctrine and summary dismissal principle)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174 (agent with contractual authority and power of attorney may have standing to sue)
Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847 (pleading-stage standing standard and burden)
Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299 (general rule that nonparty non-agent has no contractual enforcement rights)