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

Applied Underwriters (Applied) and Applied Risk Services (ARS) are Nebraska entities; S.E.B. Services of New York (S.E.B.) is a New York corporation providing security services.
S.E.B. entered an RPA (Reinsurance Participation Agreement) with AUCRAC (a captive insurer); ARS is identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s billing agent.
Applied and ARS sued S.E.B. in Nebraska district court: Count I alleged breach of a promissory note (seeking ~$8,144); Count II alleged breach of the RPA (seeking ~$752,927).
After suit was filed, the promissory note was paid in full (December 2015).
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively forum non conveniens). On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court found the appeal dispositive on mootness and standing and affirmed dismissal on different grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Mootness of Count I (promissory note)	Applied: claim not moot because S.E.B. owed sums when suit filed	S.E.B.: note paid after filing, so no live controversy	Held: Count I is moot — note was paid; claim affords no meaningful relief; affirmed dismissal on that basis
2) Standing to sue for breach of RPA (Count II)	ARS: as AUCRAC’s billing agent per RPA, ARS may enforce the RPA; Applied: nonparty lacks standing	S.E.B.: plaintiffs are nonparties and lack contract rights or authorization to sue under RPA	Held: Applied lacks standing; ARS failed to show agency or express authorization to sue under RPA; neither has standing — dismissal affirmed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction
3) Personal jurisdiction / forum selection	Plaintiffs argued Nebraska jurisdiction and enforceability of forum provision	S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and argued Nebraska is inconvenient forum	Held: Court did not need to resolve personal jurisdiction/forum‑selection issues because mootness (Count I) and lack of standing (Count II) were dispositive

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (2012) (defines mootness and its effect on justiciability)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174 (2010) (agent/servicer had standing where contract and power of attorney authorized litigation)
Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 (2000) (general rule that moot cases are subject to summary dismissal)
Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299 (1996) (nonparty to contract generally has no rights to sue for breach)
Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson Cty., 274 Neb. 386 (2007) (standing defect is a defect of subject‑matter jurisdiction)