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 Douglas County, Nebraska for breach of a promissory note (count I) and for breach of a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) (count II) tied to workers’ compensation coverage.
S.E.B. is a New York corporation; Applied is a Nebraska corporation. The signed RPA (between S.E.B. and AUCRAC) was attached to the complaint; the RPA named ARS as AUCRAC’s “billing agent.”
After suit was filed, the promissory note was paid in full.
S.E.B. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, inconvenient forum.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court directed supplemental briefing on (1) whether count I was moot due to payment of the note, and (2) whether Applied and/or ARS had standing to assert breach of the RPA when neither was a party to that agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is count I (promissory note) moot?	Note unpaid when filed; claim remains justiciable.	Note was paid after filing; no live controversy.	Moot — note paid; count I dismissed.
Do Applied/ARS have standing to sue for breach of the RPA?	ARS: as AUCRAC’s billing agent, ARS may enforce the RPA; Applied asserted its own claims on the note.	Neither Applied nor ARS are parties to the RPA; no agency or authorization shown to sue on AUCRAC’s behalf.	No standing — Applied lacks standing for count II; ARS failed to show agency or express authorization; count II dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Should the court decide personal jurisdiction/forum non conveniens?	Plaintiffs urged reversal of district court’s personal jurisdiction dismissal and enforcement of forum selection.	Defendants argued lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenient forum.	Court did not reach those issues because mootness (count I) and lack of standing (count II) were dispositive.
Was ARS’s reliance on Deutsche Bank (servicer standing) persuasive?	ARS analogized to loan servicer cases where agent had authorization to sue.	Deutsche Bank is distinguishable because it involved express authorization and power of attorney to sue.	Distinguishable — ARS had no comparable express authorization or power to sue under the RPA.

Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012) (defines mootness and justiciability principles)
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174, 777 N.W.2d 259 (2010) (agent with express authority/power of attorney may have standing to sue on behalf of trust holder)
Field Club v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, 283 Neb. 847, 814 N.W.2d 102 (2012) (standing requires a personal stake at commencement of litigation)
Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299, 543 N.W.2d 436 (1996) (nonparty to a contract generally has no rights to enforce it)