Ford Motor Company v. Maria Cruz Lopez, Individually and as Representative of David Torres Cruz, an Incapacitated Adult, 13-19-00480-CV

Collision in Brownsville, Texas: Lopez (driver) and her son Cruz (passenger) were injured; Cruz became permanently incapacitated.
Vehicle: 2009 Ford Escape at issue; Ford presented evidence it was designed in Michigan, assembled in Missouri, and originally sold in Mexico.
Claims: Lopez sued Ford for negligence, breach of warranty, strict product liability, and design/manufacturing/marketing defects (alleging rear-seat restraint design caused injuries).
Ford’s special appearance: argued no Texas jurisdiction (not incorporated/PPB in Texas; Escape not designed/manufactured/sold in Texas; only connection was plaintiffs driving into Texas).
Jurisdictional discovery: showed Ford markets and sells Escapes in Texas (sales/service centers, dealers, employees, advertising; 9,574 2009 Escapes sold in Texas).
Procedural posture and result: Trial court denied Ford’s special appearance; court of appeals affirmed, relying on Ford Motor Co. v. Montana and Texas precedent that serving a state market can supply specific jurisdiction even if the specific vehicle wasn’t sold/designed there.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas has specific personal jurisdiction over Ford	Lopez: Ford purposefully availed itself of Texas by serving the Texas market for Escapes; plaintiff’s injury occurred in Texas, so suit relates to Ford’s Texas contacts	Ford: vehicle was designed/assembled/sold outside Texas; plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of or relate to Ford’s Texas contacts; plaintiffs are nonresidents	Court: Specific jurisdiction exists—Ford served the Texas market for the type of vehicle that injured plaintiffs in Texas; nonresidency of plaintiffs does not defeat jurisdiction

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (held that serving a state market can establish specific jurisdiction under the "arise out of or relate to" standard even if the particular product was not designed or first sold there)
Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, 625 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2021) (applies Ford Motor Co.; relatedness satisfied where defendant served the forum market for the product that caused injury)
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established minimum-contacts due-process framework for personal jurisdiction)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (clarified ‘‘arise out of or relate to’’ requirement and limits on asserting jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (paradigm for specific jurisdiction where manufacturer/ nationwide distributor purposely serve a forum market)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts analysis is defendant-focused; plaintiff’s forum contacts alone insufficient for jurisdiction)