Black v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 551 S.W.3d 346

Background

William Black (UK citizen) signed an employment agreement with Diamond Offshore Drilling (Bermuda) Limited (Diamond Bermuda) containing an exclusive forum-selection clause vesting jurisdiction in Bermuda courts for disputes "between" the parties (and specified successors/assigns).
Black was injured aboard the Ocean Valiant in Spain performing shipboard work; he sued in Texas asserting Jones Act negligence and general maritime (unseaworthiness/maintenance & cure) claims against multiple Diamond corporate entities, including several non‑signatory defendants domiciled/doing business in Texas and the vessel owner in the UK.
Non‑signatory defendants moved to dismiss based on the Bermuda forum clause (or forum non conveniens), arguing they could enforce the clause as closely related transaction participants or under equitable‑estoppel theories (concerted‑misconduct, intertwined‑claims, direct‑benefits).
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss as to non‑signatories (basis not specified) and declined to decide forum non conveniens; Black appealed only the dismissal of claims against non‑signatories.
The appellate court analyzed contract language, Texas law on enforcing forum/arbitration clauses by non‑signatories, and various estoppel/transaction‑participant theories, concluding the Agreement expressly limited enforcement to the parties and certain successors/assigns and that the estoppel theories invoked by defendants were inapplicable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Black)	Defendant's Argument (Non‑signatories)	Held
Whether non‑signatories can enforce the Agreement's forum‑selection clause	Forum clause applies only to parties; non‑signatories cannot invoke it	Non‑signatories may enforce under equitable estoppel or transaction‑participant doctrines	Reversed: non‑signatories cannot enforce the clause; trial court abused discretion
Applicability of "concerted‑misconduct" estoppel	Not recognized under Texas law	Clause enforceable because defendants allege concerted misconduct with signatory	Rejected: Texas has not adopted concerted‑misconduct estoppel
Applicability of "intertwined‑claims" estoppel	Claims arise from statutory/common maritime law, not the employment contract	Claims are intertwined with contract obligations so estoppel applies	Rejected as inapplicable: Black's claims do not arise from the employment agreement
Applicability of direct‑benefits estoppel	Claims do not rely on contract terms; arise under Jones Act and maritime common law	Non‑signatories argue plaintiff effectively seeks contract‑related benefits	Rejected: liability arises from statutory/common law, not contract; direct‑benefits inapplicable
Transaction‑participant doctrine	Agreement expressly limits enforcement to parties/successors; doctrine precluded	Defendants assert they are closely related transaction participants so enforcement foreseeable	Rejected: Agreement's express terms foreclose extending enforcement to non‑parties; doctrine cannot be applied here

Key Cases Cited

In re AIU Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing forum‑selection clause dismissals)
Deep Water Slender Wells, Ltd. v. Shell Int'l Expl. & Prod. Inc., 234 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (scope of forum clauses; analogy to arbitration jurisprudence)
In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. 2010) (common‑sense test for whether claims fall within clause)
G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., L.P., 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (nonparties generally cannot invoke arbitration/forum clauses; framework for who may enforce)
Pinto Tech. Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon, 526 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. 2017) (discussion of transaction‑participant theory and limits where contract disclaims third‑party rights)
In re Merrill Lynch Trust Co. FSB, 235 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2007) (discussion of intertwined‑claims and concerted‑misconduct estoppel doctrines)
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (enumeration of theories that may bind non‑signatories)
In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005) (test whether claim seeks direct benefit from contract)
In re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 293 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. 2009) (liability arising from general law does not invoke direct‑benefits estoppel)
In re Cornerstone Healthcare Holding Grp., Inc., 348 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (application of direct‑benefits estoppel principles)