Brigade Electronics (UK) Limited and Brigade Electronics, Inc. v. Anita Dehaney, Individually and as the of Estate of Alton Ford Sr., 01-20-00044-CV

Plaintiffs (Dehaney as executrix, Jefferson, and Irby) sued Brigade Electronics (UK) Ltd. and Brigade Electronics, Inc. after their father was killed by an RTG crane at the Port of Houston; the crane was equipped with four Brigade broadband sound (BBS) reverse-motion alarms.
Plaintiffs asserted products-liability and negligence theories, alleging the alarms were defectively designed or unsuited for marine-port/RTG crane use and failed to warn the decedent.
Key contacts: Brigade (UK) demonstrated and tested BBS alarms at the Port in 2005, sold initial units for evaluation, traveled to Texas multiple times, and helped establish a U.S. distribution arrangement (Medsafe); Brigade (US) later supplied and sold hundreds of alarms to the Port through Medsafe.
Defendants filed special appearances arguing lack of personal jurisdiction: they claimed limited/fortuitous contacts with Texas (stream-of-commerce insufficient) and submitted affidavits denying Texas operations.
The trial court denied the special appearances; on interlocutory appeal the First Court of Appeals affirmed, finding sufficient purposeful availment and a substantial connection between Texas contacts and the claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Brigade (UK) and Brigade (US) for products-liability and negligence claims	Brigade purposefully directed conduct to Texas: product demonstrations, testing, sales/deliveries to the Port, creation of Medsafe distributorship, and marketing to Texas—so plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded and proved minimum contacts and a causal connection	Contacts were fortuitous or initiated by the Port/HFP; merely placing products into the stream of commerce is insufficient; defendants lacked continual Texas presence and jurisdiction is unreasonable	Affirmed: specific jurisdiction exists for both defendants based on purposeful availment (demonstrations, distribution network, repeated sales) and a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts; exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable
Whether plaintiffs’ group-pleading of multiple Brigade entities defeats jurisdictional pleading requirements	Plaintiffs’ collective allegations, when liberally construed and tied to distinct acts (demonstrations, sales, distributor relationship), satisfy the long-arm pleading standard	Defendants argued improper group pleading and lack of identification of which entity performed which acts (raised for first time on appeal)	Rejected as waived on appeal and not fatal: pleadings met the minimal long-arm pleading standard; remand would be remedy if pleadings wholly deficient

Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (Texas long‑arm statute construed to reach as far as federal due‑process allows)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (purposeful availment touchstone; only defendant’s forum contacts count)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (specific jurisdiction focuses on relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation)
Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (stream‑of‑commerce requires additional conduct indicating intent to serve forum market)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (plurality discussion of stream‑of‑commerce plus factors)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (contacts must be purposeful; long‑term commercial relationships relevant)
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (foreseeability that product will reach forum insufficient alone for jurisdiction)
Kelly v. General Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (plaintiff bears minimal pleading burden; burden then shifts to defendant to negate jurisdiction)