Companion Prop and Cslty Co. v. Anthony Palermo, e
723 F.3d 557
5th Cir.2013Background
- Companion is a South Carolina insurer with its principal place of business in SC.
- Palermo and Raines are Louisiana residents and attorneys at BSW, a Louisiana firm.
- In Feb 2006, a Louisiana injury case against State Roofing involved Companion via indemnification and insurance.
- Aspen, a Texas-based claims administrator, oversaw the claim and retained BSW to defend; BSW communicated only with Aspen.
- In Aug 2009 BSW determined the proper policy; in Oct 2009 BSW allowed a consent judgment against Companion indemnifying State Roofing, signed by BSW, causing over $400,000 in damages.
- Companion sued Palermo, Raines, and BSW in a Texas federal court for legal malpractice, claiming Texas jurisdiction; district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Companion appeals affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants are subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Texas. | Companion argues purposeful availing via ongoing Aspen contact. | Defendants contend no Texas-related malpractice; injury occurred in Louisiana; no Texas attachment. | No specific jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Defendants are subject to general personal jurisdiction in Texas. | Contacts with Texas were continuous and systematic through Aspen. | Defendants had no offices, personnel, taxes, or agent in Texas; contacts were limited. | No general jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether venue lies properly in the Northern District of Texas. | Venue improper-venue motion argued; not ruled on. | Same; venue arguments not dispositive if jurisdiction fails. | Venue issue unnecessary to decision; affirmed on jurisdiction grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Myers & Associates, 41 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 1995) (brief of professional obligations extends to forum when related relationship exists)
- Steber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2000) (specific jurisdiction where attorney directed Texas-based advice; malpractice occurred in Texas或attached obligations)
- Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1999) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(2) dismissal; prima facie showing suffices)
- Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 428 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2006) (minimum contacts required for due-process analysis in diversity cases)
- Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 445 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2006) (Texas long-arm statute extends to due-process limits; one inquiry)