Frank Luciano and Helene Luciano v. sprayfoampolymers.com, Llc
625 S.W.3d 1
| Tex. | 2021Background
- SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC is a Connecticut manufacturer of Thermoseal 500 spray‑foam insulation; Frank and Helene Luciano are Texas residents who suffered alleged injuries from that insulation installed in their Leander, Texas home.
- The Lucianos sued the manufacturer (SprayFoam) and the Texas installer (Old World) in Travis County asserting negligence, products liability, breach of warranty, nuisance, DTPA, and related claims.
- SprayFoam filed a special appearance contesting personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the appearance. The court of appeals reversed, but the Texas Supreme Court granted review and abated the case pending Ford Motor Co. v. Montana.
- Evidence relevant to Texas contacts included: SprayFoam’s use of a Grand Prairie, Texas distribution center (via a Colorado logistics company), sales through a Texas‑based independent sales representative (Preston Nix), and sales to Texas installers (including Old World).
- The Texas Supreme Court, applying Ford Motor Co., concluded SprayFoam purposefully availed itself of the Texas market and that the Lucianos’ suit "arise[s] out of or relate[s] to" those contacts; it reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s denial of the special appearance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over SprayFoam | Luciano: SprayFoam served the Texas market and its product caused injury in Texas, so jurisdiction is proper | SprayFoam: Contacts are insufficient; orders, approvals, and payments occur in Connecticut; use of an independent rep and third‑party logistics does not show purposeful availment | Held: Specific jurisdiction exists; SprayFoam purposely availed itself of Texas via distribution center and sales rep and injury occurred in Texas |
| Whether SprayFoam purposefully availed itself of Texas through a Texas distribution center | Luciano: Grand Prairie warehouse was maintained to store/deliver temperature‑sensitive product for Texas customers | SprayFoam: Warehouse usage flowed from a Colorado logistics contract and is not SprayFoam’s purposeful act | Held: Use of the Texas warehouse at SprayFoam’s direction was deliberate and evidences purposeful availment |
| Whether use of an independent sales rep (Nix) and sales to Texas installers establish purposeful availment | Luciano: SprayFoam sold through Nix, paid commissions, and dispatched Nix to inspect alleged problems—showing targeted marketing and after‑sales activity | SprayFoam: Nix was independent and sales were processed in Connecticut; his actions are not SprayFoam’s contacts | Held: SprayFoam’s recruitment and use of Nix to solicit Texas customers and provide post‑sale services support purposeful availment |
| Whether the relatedness/causation requirement blocks jurisdiction absent a strict causal link between in‑state activity and the specific product | Luciano: "Relates to" does not require strict causation; Ford confirms forum market + in‑forum injury suffice | SprayFoam: Plaintiffs must show the product originated from Texas activities; otherwise Bristol‑Myers precludes jurisdiction | Held: Following Ford, strict causation is not required; serving a forum market and an in‑forum injury satisfy the "arise out of or relate to" test here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (holding that when a company serves a state market and its product causes injury there, state courts may hear the suit; "relates to" is broader than strict causation)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum‑contacts due‑process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (stream‑of‑commerce and purposeful availment principles; a defendant who deliberately serves a state may be subject to suit there)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (limits specific jurisdiction where plaintiffs lack connection to the forum; emphasizes affiliation between forum and controversy)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic the defendant is "at home")
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (plurality opinion discussing stream‑of‑commerce and need for additional conduct to show purposeful availment)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability in jurisdictional analysis)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (focuses on defendant's forum contacts rather than unilateral actions of third parties)
- Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (Texas precedent applying stream‑of‑commerce plus additional conduct to product‑liability jurisdiction)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (relatedness requires a substantial connection between defendant's contacts and operative facts of litigation)
- TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. 2016) (distinguishes actionable conduct from additional conduct and applies Asahi's "additional conduct" framework)