Eastern Concrete Materials, Inc.v. ACE American Insurance Company, 4:18-cv-00114

Background

Great American sued for a declaratory judgment that its umbrella policy (covering U.S. Concrete and subsidiaries including Eastern Concrete) does not owe a defense or indemnity for a New Jersey pollution claim and, if any coverage exists, it is excess to ACE's policy.
The umbrella policy was negotiated/brokered in Texas through a Texas insurance agency; the policy lists U.S. Concrete (Texas address) as first-named insured and contains multiple Texas-specific endorsements.
Eastern Concrete is a defendant and a named insured; it contends both ACE and Great American policies potentially cover amounts it paid or may pay in the New Jersey pollution litigation.
Eastern Concrete moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively to abstain in favor of a pending New Jersey state action or to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey.
The court considered personal jurisdiction (specific and general), abstention under the Declaratory Judgment Act guided by Trejo factors, and transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction — specific	Insurance was procured/issued in Texas; Eastern (via officers/parent) used a Texas broker and thus purposefully availed itself of Texas; dispute centers on Texas-issued policy	Eastern lacks sufficient contacts with Texas; merely a passive, out-of-state insured	Court found specific jurisdiction apparent: the insurance procurement and policy contacts tie the dispute to Texas, so exercising jurisdiction is permissible
Personal jurisdiction — general	Eastern is "at home" in Texas because several officers maintain offices there and U.S. Concrete (parent) is Texas citizen/alter ego	Eastern not essentially at home in Texas; general jurisdiction not established	Court declined to decide general jurisdiction because specific jurisdiction sufficed
Abstention (parallel NJ state action)	Federal court appropriate: Texas law governs policy interpretation and Texas is a convenient, efficient forum; plaintiff did not forum shop improperly	Eastern urged deference to NJ state court handling the pollution suit	Court denied abstention: Trejo factors (ability of NJ court to resolve issues, forum convenience, fairness, judicial economy) favored retaining the federal declaratory action in Texas
Transfer to District of New Jersey under §1404(a)	— (implicit)	Transfer better because pollution suit pending in NJ	Court denied transfer: private/public factors (witnesses, evidence, local interest, familiarity with governing Texas law) did not favor transfer and moving party failed to show transfer warranted

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644 (5th Cir.) (burden on plaintiff to establish personal jurisdiction)
Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir.) (jurisdictional proof standards)
Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir.) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional showing)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S.) (minimum contacts/due process test)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S.) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and relation to claim)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S.) (framework for general jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S.) (‘‘at home’’ standard for general jurisdiction)
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (U.S.) (district court discretion over declaratory relief)
St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Trejo, 39 F.3d 585 (5th Cir.) (factors guiding abstention in declaratory cases)
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir.) (private/public factors for §1404(a) transfer)