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; S.E.B. Services of New York, Inc. (S.E.B.) is a New York corporation that purchased workers’ compensation coverage through a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with AUCRAC (not a party here).
The RPA (attached to the complaint) names ARS as AUCRAC’s “billing agent” authorized to account for and "true up" amounts under the RPA; the RPA also states it benefits only AUCRAC and S.E.B. and reserves enforcement rights to AUCRAC.
S.E.B. fell behind on premium payments; its president signed a promissory note in favor of “Applied and its affiliates and subsidiaries” for $42,362.59; that note was paid in full in December 2015 after suit was filed.
Applied and ARS sued S.E.B. in Douglas County, Nebraska, alleging (Count I) breach of the promissory note ($8,144.27 remaining alleged) and (Count II) breach of the RPA (seeking $752,926.98).
S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and improper forum. The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively forum non conveniens). On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds: Count I was moot; Count II lacked standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count I (promissory note) remains justiciable	Applied: note unpaid when filed; claim survives	S.E.B.: note was paid in full after filing, rendering claim moot	Moot — note paid before resolution; Count I dismissed as moot
Whether Applied/ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA	Applied: (generally) asserts claims; ARS: billing-agent status in RPA gives authority to sue	S.E.B.: neither plaintiff is a party to RPA and RPA disclaims third‑party enforcement; no express agency or power to sue	No standing — Applied lacks standing; ARS failed to show agency/power to sue under RPA; Count II dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction
Whether ARS’s designation as “billing agent” creates agency authority to enforce RPA	ARS: billing-agent language implies agency and authority to enforce AUCRAC’s rights	S.E.B.: RPA expressly limits beneficiaries to AUCRAC and S.E.B. and contemplates AUCRAC bringing suit; no grant of power to ARS to litigate	Rejected — billing‑agent label insufficient; no express authorization or power of attorney to sue
Forum non conveniens / enforceability of forum-selection clause	Plaintiffs argued Nebraska was appropriate forum and forum clause enforceable	S.E.B. had argued Nebraska inconvenient; district court dismissed alternatively on inconvenient forum	Not reached — appellate decision rested on mootness and lack of standing; original forum arguments unnecessary to resolve appeal

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (mootness doctrine; events after filing can eliminate interest)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174, 777 N.W.2d 259 (agent with express contractual authority and power of attorney can have standing to sue)
Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714, 605 N.W.2d 472 (general rule that moot cases are subject to summary dismissal)
Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847, 814 N.W.2d 102 (pleading-stage standard for alleging standing is relatively liberal)
Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson County, 274 Neb. 386, 740 N.W.2d 362 (standing is a defect of subject‑matter jurisdiction)