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 providing security services.
S.E.B. entered an RPA (Reinsurance Participation Agreement) with AUCRAC (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.); ARS was identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s “billing agent.”
S.E.B. executed a promissory note in favor of "Applied and its affiliates and subsidiaries" for unpaid premiums; the note was later paid in full (December 2015).
Applied sued S.E.B. in Nebraska (Douglas County) asserting (1) breach of the promissory note (count I) and (2) breach of the RPA (count II) seeking large damages for the latter.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively as an inconvenient forum); plaintiffs appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness of count I and standing to assert count II.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is count I (promissory note) moot because the note was paid?	Applied: Not moot because at filing S.E.B. owed sums.	S.E.B.: Note was paid post-filing, eliminating any live controversy.	Held: Count I is moot — payment after filing foreclosed meaningful relief.
Do Applied and/or ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA (count II) though neither is a party to the RPA?	Applied: N/A for RPA (admits lack of standing). ARS: As AUCRAC’s billing agent, ARS may enforce the RPA.	S.E.B.: Neither plaintiff is a party or authorized agent to enforce the RPA; RPA disclaims third-party enforcement.	Held: Neither plaintiff has standing; Applied lacks standing and ARS failed to show agency authority to sue.
Was dismissal properly based on personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens?	Plaintiffs argued district court erred on jurisdiction and forum enforcement (forum selection).	S.E.B. maintained lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenient forum.	Held: Court affirmed dismissal but on grounds of mootness (count I) and lack of standing (count II), not on personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (mootness doctrine and justiciability)
Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha, 282 Neb. 200 (mootness principles)
Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 (moot-case summary dismissal)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174 (agent/servicer standing where express authority and power of attorney existed)
Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847 (standing standard at pleading stage)
In re Interest of Meridian H., 281 Neb. 465 (standing requires asserting own rights)
Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson Cty., 274 Neb. 386 (standing as subject-matter jurisdiction defect)