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 district court asserting (Count I) breach of a promissory note (~$8,144) and (Count II) ARS’s claim for breach of the RPA (~$752,927).
- After suit was filed, the promissory note was paid in full (Dec. 2015); S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively on forum non conveniens). On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court directed supplemental briefing on mootness of Count I and standing to bring Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Count I (promissory note) moot? | Note was unpaid when suit filed; relief still appropriate. | Note was paid in full after filing; claim no longer ripe for relief. | Moot — note paid post-filing; no meaningful relief remained; dismissal affirmed. |
| Do Applied and/or ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA? | ARS: as AUCRAC’s billing agent per the RPA, ARS can enforce the RPA; Applied asserted rights as affiliate. | S.E.B.: Neither Applied nor ARS is a party to the RPA; only AUCRAC has enforcement rights. | No standing — Applied admits lack of standing; ARS failed to show agency or express authorization to sue under the RPA; dismissal affirmed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction. |
| Does the RPA’s billing‑agent language create authority to sue? | ARS: the billing‑agent clause implies agency authority to enforce obligations. | S.E.B.: The RPA expressly limits beneficiaries and reserves enforcement to AUCRAC; no power of attorney or express authorization to sue exists. | Billing‑agent language insufficient; RPA contains clauses permitting AUCRAC to seek relief and disclaims third‑party enforcement; ARS lacks demonstrated authority to sue. |
| Should the court reach personal jurisdiction/forum non conveniens issues? | Plaintiffs asked reversal of dismissal and enforcement of forum provisions. | S.E.B. maintained lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenient forum. | Court did not address original jurisdictional/forum rulings because mootness and lack of standing were dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (mootness doctrine; post‑filing events can eliminate need for relief)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174, 777 N.W.2d 259 (agent with express authority/power of attorney may have standing to sue)
- Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847, 814 N.W.2d 102 (standing principles; liberal pleading standard for alleging standing)
- Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714, 605 N.W.2d 472 (general rule: moot cases subject to summary dismissal)
- Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299, 543 N.W.2d 436 (nonparty to a contract generally has no rights to enforce it)