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. (S.E.B.) is a New York corporation providing security services.
S.E.B. entered a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with AUCRAC (a captive insurer) and a promissory note in favor of "Applied . . . and its affiliates" for unpaid premiums; ARS is identified in the RPA as AUCRAC’s "billing agent."
Plaintiffs sued S.E.B. in Nebraska district court asserting (1) breach of the promissory note (Applied) for $8,144.27 and (2) breach of the RPA (ARS) for $752,926.98. S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, forum non conveniens.
Before and during the motion proceedings, the promissory note was paid in full (December 2015), and parties acknowledged this in supplemental filings; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively inconvenient forum).
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court directed supplemental briefing on mootness of count I (note) and whether Applied/ARS had standing to sue for breach of the RPA; the Court concluded those two issues were dispositive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether count I (promissory note) is moot	Note was unpaid when filed, so claim remains justiciable	Note was paid in full after filing, removing any live controversy	Moot — note paid after filing; count I dismissed as moot
Whether Applied/ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA	ARS: as AUCRAC’s billing agent, ARS may enforce RPA; Applied contends its affiliate status justifies suit	S.E.B.: neither Applied nor ARS is a party to the RPA and no authority was shown empowering them to sue	No standing — Applied lacks standing; ARS failed to show agency/power to sue on AUCRAC’s behalf; count II dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction
Whether Nebraska court lacked personal jurisdiction or forum was inconvenient	Plaintiffs preserved forum and contested jurisdiction rulings below	S.E.B. argued lack of personal jurisdiction and moved dismissal on forum‑non‑conveniens grounds	Court did not reach these original grounds; affirmed dismissal on mootness (count I) and lack of standing (count II)

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (2012) (defines mootness and its effect on justiciability)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174 (2010) (agent/servicer may have standing to sue when contract grants express authority and power of attorney)
Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 (2000) (moot cases are generally summarily dismissed)
Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847 (2012) (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing; pleading stage standard is liberal)
Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson Cty., 274 Neb. 386 (2007) (standing is a subject‑matter jurisdiction defect)