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

Applied Underwriters (Applied) and Applied Risk Services (ARS) (plaintiffs) are Nebraska entities; S.E.B. Services of New York (S.E.B.) (defendant) is a New York corporation that obtained workers’ compensation coverage via a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with AUCRAC (not a party here).
ARS is identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s “billing agent” with authority to “account for, offset and true up” amounts under the RPA; the RPA also contains an express clause limiting beneficiaries to the parties (AUCRAC and S.E.B.) and their affiliates, and authorizes AUCRAC to seek relief in Nebraska courts.
S.E.B. fell behind on premiums; the S.E.B. president executed a promissory note to Applied and affiliates for $42,362.59, later paid in full on December 22, 2015.
Applied/ARS sued S.E.B. in Douglas County, Neb., alleging (1) breach of the promissory note (Applied) and (2) breach of the RPA (ARS) seeking large damages. S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for forum non conveniens/transfer.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively inconvenient forum). On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness of count I and standing for count II and found those issues dispositive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether count I (promissory note) is moot	Promissory note unpaid when suit filed; relief originally viable	Note was paid in full during litigation, so no live controversy remains	Count I is moot because the note was paid before resolution; dismissal affirmed on mootness grounds
Whether Applied has standing to sue for breach of the RPA	Applied asserted claims under the promissory note and RPA-related obligations	Applied admitted it was not a party to the RPA and lacks standing to enforce it	Applied lacks standing to pursue count II (not a party to the RPA); no standing
Whether ARS has standing to sue for breach of the RPA as AUCRAC’s billing agent	ARS contends RPA’s designation of ARS as ‘‘billing agent’’ gives agency authority to enforce RPA claims	S.E.B. argues RPA does not confer authority to bring suit; RPA limits beneficiaries to AUCRAC and S.E.B.	ARS failed to allege or show that AUCRAC authorized ARS to sue; ARS lacks standing; dismissal affirmed on subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (Neb. 2012) (mootness doctrine and justiciability principles)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174, 777 N.W.2d 259 (Neb. 2010) (agent standing where contract and power of attorney expressly authorized litigation)
Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847, 814 N.W.2d 102 (Neb. 2012) (standing and pleading-stage standards)
Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299, 543 N.W.2d 436 (Neb. 1996) (general rule: nonparty to contract lacks rights to enforce it)
Brook Valley Ltd. Part. v. Mutual of Omaha Bank, 281 Neb. 455, 797 N.W.2d 748 (Neb. 2011) (standing may be raised at any time)