Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B. Servs. of New York
297 Neb. 246
| Neb. | 2017Background
- 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 (not a party here); ARS was identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s “billing agent.”
- Applied sued S.E.B. in Nebraska on (1) a promissory note claim (Applied) for unpaid installments and (2) breach of the RPA (ARS) seeking large contractual damages.
- After suit was filed, the promissory note was paid in full; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and alternatively found Nebraska an inconvenient forum.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness of the note claim and whether Applied/ARS had standing to sue on the RPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of promissory-note claim | Note was unpaid when filed; claim remains live | Note was paid after filing, so relief is moot | Claim is moot; summary dismissal affirmed |
| Standing to sue for breach of RPA (Applied) | Applied asserted contractual claims | Applied is not a party or agent of RPA; no rights under contract | Applied lacks standing; claim fails |
| Standing to sue for breach of RPA (ARS) | ARS claims status as AUCRAC’s billing agent creates agency authority to sue | RPA does not grant ARS authority or power to sue; enforcement rights reserved to AUCRAC | ARS failed to allege/establish agency or authorization; lacks standing |
| Proper basis for dismissal | Plaintiffs challenged district court’s personal-jurisdiction ruling and forum non conveniens | Defendants relied on lack of personal jurisdiction and forum transfer/dismissal | Court affirms dismissal but on grounds of mootness (count I) and lack of subject-matter standing (count II); did not reach personal-jurisdiction ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (mootness doctrine and summary dismissal)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174, 777 N.W.2d 259 (agent with express authorization may have standing to sue)
- Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847, 814 N.W.2d 102 (standing: real interest and burden to plead elements)
- Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson County, 274 Neb. 386, 740 N.W.2d 362 (defect of standing is a defect of subject-matter jurisdiction)