American Technologies, Inc. v. Coppertree Apartments LLC, 4:19-cv-01037

Triumph Housing Management, LLC (Georgia) manages a portfolio of properties including the Coppertree Property in Houston, Texas; Triumph does not own the properties.
The Cone Company, Inc. (Alabama) acted as an insurance procurer for Triumph in 2017; Cone has no offices, employees, licenses, taxes, advertising, or business operations in Texas.
Cone engaged AmWINS (wholesale broker) and General Star (insurer) to obtain a policy; communications among Triumph, Cone, AmWINS, and General Star occurred outside Texas.
A policy became effective November 1, 2017; a December 9, 2017 fire at Coppertree prompted claims that General Star denied, alleging the policy was scheduled rather than blanket.
Triumph filed third-party claims against Cone for negligence and negligent misrepresentation and alleged the court has personal jurisdiction; Cone moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2).
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Cone’s motion, finding no personal jurisdiction because Cone’s contacts with Texas are insufficient and Triumph has not shown purposeful availment or forum-directed conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
General jurisdiction	Triumph alleges Cone is subject to court's jurisdiction	Cone lacks continuous/systematic contacts with Texas	No general jurisdiction — Cone not "at home" in Texas
Specific jurisdiction — purposeful availment via business contacts	Cone solicited and procured insurance covering a Texas property, so it availed itself of Texas law/market	Cone's contacts arose from Triumph's solicitation; Cone had no Texas presence, licensing, or targeted activity	No specific jurisdiction — business contacts were attenuated and initiated by Triumph
Specific jurisdiction — effects test (Calder)	Cone knew some insured structures were in Texas and caused harm there, so its tortious conduct was aimed at Texas	Cone committed negligence (not intentional tort) and performed no forum-directed acts	No — effects test not met; negligence with foreseeable forum effects insufficient without additional forum-directed acts
Sufficiency of property location alone	The Coppertree property's location supports jurisdiction	A property located in Texas alone is insufficient to establish defendant's contacts with Texas	No — property location alone does not confer personal jurisdiction over Cone

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic the defendant is "at home")
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for intentional torts expressly aimed at the forum)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (forum contacts cannot arise solely from plaintiff's unilateral connections)
McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957) (insurance contract with forum resident can establish purposeful availment)
Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1999) (foreseeable injury alone insufficient for specific jurisdiction)
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff's prima facie burden on jurisdictional facts)
Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 1993) (two-step inquiry: state long-arm and due process)
Monkton Ins. Servs. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (forum need not be the focal point where defendant exploited the forum market)