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

Background

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 providing security services.
S.E.B. entered a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with AUCRAC (not a party here); ARS was identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s "billing agent." A promissory note (naming Applied and affiliates) was executed by S.E.B. for unpaid amounts.
Applied sued S.E.B. in Nebraska district court asserting (1) breach of the promissory note (count I) and (2) breach of the RPA (count II) seeking significant damages under count II.
After suit was filed, S.E.B. paid the promissory note in full; S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively as inconvenient forum). On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness of count I and standing for count II.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is count I (promissory note) moot?	Applied: claim remains justiciable because debt existed when suit filed.	S.E.B.: note was paid after filing, rendering claim moot.	Moot — promissory note was paid pre-hearing; no meaningful relief remained, so count I is moot.
Do Applied and/or ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA?	Applied: asserts claim under RPA (Applied later admits nonparty). ARS: claims standing as AUCRAC’s billing agent authorized to account for and collect amounts under RPA.	S.E.B.: neither plaintiff is a party to RPA; ARS lacks express authorization or power of attorney to sue; RPA limits beneficiaries to parties and affiliates.	No standing — Applied is not a party; ARS has not shown agency or express authority to sue AUCRAC’s rights under the RPA; count II dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Was the district court’s personal-jurisdiction dismissal correct?	Applied/ARS: argued Nebraska’s long-arm statute and forum-selection provisions could support jurisdiction and venue.	S.E.B.: challenged jurisdiction and alternatively urged dismissal for forum non conveniens.	Court did not reach original jurisdictional analysis; affirmed dismissal on mootness (count I) and lack of standing (count II).
Can a nonparty billing agent enforce an RPA absent express authorization?	ARS: billing-agent language in RPA implies authority to enforce/collect.	S.E.B.: RPA language restricts enforcement to parties; no power of attorney or express litigation authority to billing agent.	Held that billing-agent designation alone did not create standing to enforce the RPA; express authorization is required.

Key Cases Cited

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (defines mootness and discusses dismissal of moot cases)
Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 (general rule that moot cases are subject to summary dismissal)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174 (loan servicer had standing where contract and power of attorney expressly authorized foreclosure litigation)
Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson Cty., 274 Neb. 386 (standing is a subject-matter jurisdiction issue)