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

Applied Underwriters, Inc. (Applied) and Applied Risk Services, Inc. (ARS) (plaintiffs) are Nebraska entities that administer workers’ compensation programs; S.E.B. Services of New York, Inc. and 20th Century Services (S.E.B.) are New York corporations providing security services.
S.E.B. entered into a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with AUCRAC (a captive insurer); ARS is identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s "billing agent." Applied is not a party to the RPA.
Applied and ARS sued S.E.B. in Douglas County, Nebraska, asserting (Count I) breach of a promissory note and (Count II) breach of the RPA (seeking large unpaid amounts).
After suit was filed, S.E.B. repaid the promissory note in full; S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenient forum. The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (alternatively inconvenient forum).
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on (1) mootness of Count I due to payment of the note and (2) whether Applied/ARS had standing to sue for breach of the RPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Count I (promissory note) moot?	Applied: Claim not moot because debt existed when suit was filed.	S.E.B.: Note was paid after filing, so no live controversy.	Moot — note was paid; no meaningful relief remained.
Do Applied/ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA?	Applied: (for count II) Applied did not contest lack of party status; ARS: as AUCRAC’s billing agent, ARS may enforce the RPA.	S.E.B.: Neither Applied nor ARS is a party to the RPA; ARS lacks express authorization/POA to sue on AUCRAC’s behalf.	No standing — Applied lacks standing; ARS failed to show agency or authorization to sue under the RPA.
Should court decide personal jurisdiction instead of subject-matter defects?	Plaintiffs relied on district court’s personal jurisdiction ruling.	S.E.B. focused on lack of personal jurisdiction/inconvenient forum.	Court addressed subject-matter (standing/mootness) first; dismissal affirmed on those grounds.
Can ARS rely on billing-agent language in RPA to sue for breach?	ARS: RPA’s billing-agent clause implies authority to enforce payment rights.	S.E.B.: The RPA explicitly limits beneficiaries to the parties and their affiliates; it does not confer enforcement rights to billing agent.	Billing-agent label insufficient; RPA disclaims third-party enforcement; no implied authority shown.

State v. Senn, 295 Neb. 315 (review of appellate jurisdictional standards)
Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (mootness principles and loss of personal interest after filing)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174 (agent/servicer standing where express authorization and power of attorney existed)
Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 (general rule on summary dismissal of moot cases)
Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson Cty., 274 Neb. 386 (standing as subject-matter jurisdiction defect)