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 that sued S.E.B. Services of New York, Inc. (S.E.B.), a New York corporation, alleging (1) breach of a promissory note and (2) breach of a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) between S.E.B. and Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. (AUCRAC).
- The RPA (attached to the complaint) designates ARS as AUCRAC’s “billing agent” and describes enforcement rights reserved to AUCRAC; ARS is not a signatory party to the RPA.
- The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over S.E.B., and alternatively found Nebraska an inconvenient forum; plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing on (a) whether the promissory note claim (count I) was moot because the note had been paid, and (b) whether Applied and/or ARS had standing to assert the RPA breach claim (count II).
- The record and judicial admissions showed the promissory note was paid in full after the suit was filed, and neither Applied nor ARS were parties to the RPA; ARS asserted standing as AUCRAC’s billing agent but produced no authorization to sue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of promissory note claim | Note unpaid when filed; claim remains live | Note was paid after filing; claim is moot | Claim is moot — dismissal affirmed as to count I |
| Standing to sue for breach of RPA | ARS: as AUCRAC’s billing agent, ARS may sue to enforce RPA | S.E.B.: Plaintiffs are nonparties with no rights under the RPA; no agency power to sue | Applied lacks standing; ARS lacks shown authority/agency; count II dismissed for lack of standing |
| Proper forum / personal jurisdiction (procedural posture below) | Nebraska was appropriate forum; RPA contained forum provisions (plaintiffs sought enforcement) | S.E.B. argued lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenient forum | Court did not reach merits; affirmed dismissal on mootness (count I) and lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction/standing (count II) |
Key Cases Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174, 777 N.W.2d 259 (2010) (loan servicer had standing as agent where contract and power of attorney authorized foreclosure suits)
- Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012) (definitions and principles on mootness and justiciability)
- Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847, 814 N.W.2d 102 (2012) (standing requires a real interest and party‑specific rights)
- Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714, 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000) (moot cases are generally subject to summary dismissal)
- Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson Cty., 274 Neb. 386, 740 N.W.2d 362 (2007) (defect of standing is a defect of subject‑matter jurisdiction)