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

Applied Underwriters, Inc. (Applied) and Applied Risk Services, Inc. (ARS) (plaintiffs) sued S.E.B. Services of New York, Inc. (S.E.B.) in Nebraska for (1) unpaid amounts under a promissory note (count I) and (2) breach of a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) (count II).
S.E.B. is a New York corporation; Applied is Nebraska-based. The RPA was between S.E.B. and AUCRAC (a captive), and the RPA named ARS as AUCRAC’s "billing agent."
After suit was filed, the promissory note was paid in full (December 2015).
S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and alternatively on forum non conveniens grounds; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenience.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court directed supplemental briefing on (a) whether count I was moot and (b) whether Applied/ARS had standing to assert count II. The Court found those issues dispositive and affirmed dismissal on different grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of promissory-note claim (Count I)	Applied contended the claim was live because S.E.B. owed on the note when suit was filed.	S.E.B. pointed out the note was paid in full before/at the time of the dismissal hearing.	Count I is moot because the note was paid and no occasion for meaningful relief remained; dismissal affirmed as to count I.
Standing to sue for breach of the RPA (Count II) — Applied	Applied conceded it was not a party to the RPA and lacked standing.	S.E.B. argued nonparties cannot sue on the contract.	Applied lacks standing; cannot bring count II.
Standing to sue for breach of the RPA (Count II) — ARS (billing agent)	ARS argued its designation as AUCRAC’s billing agent in the RPA conferred agency authority and standing to enforce the RPA.	S.E.B. argued the RPA neither grants ARS authority to sue nor shows a power of attorney or express authorization; RPA limits enforcement to AUCRAC and S.E.B.	ARS failed to allege or show an agency relationship or express authorization to sue; ARS lacks standing.

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (mootness doctrine; events after filing can eliminate personal interest)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174 (servicer with express contractual authority and power of attorney has standing to sue as agent)
Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 (general rule: moot cases are subject to summary dismissal)
Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson County, 274 Neb. 386 (defect of standing is a defect of subject matter jurisdiction)
Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299 (general rule: nonparty to a contract has no rights under it and cannot sue for breach)