670 S.W.3d 341
Tex.2023Background
- Plaintiff Tommy Morgan, a Texas resident, was injured when a model 18650 lithium‑ion battery he bought in Texas for use with an e‑cigarette allegedly exploded in his pocket.
- Defendants LG Chem, Ltd. (Korea) and LG Chem America, Inc. undisputedly sold, shipped, and distributed thousands of 18650 batteries into Texas (including to Texas manufacturers and via Texas ports); they conceded they are not "at home" in Texas.
- Defendants filed special appearances asserting no specific personal jurisdiction because they targeted industrial OEM customers, not individual consumers or e‑cigarette users, and did not intend standalone consumer sales of the cells.
- Trial court denied the special appearances; the court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals.
- The court applied Texas-specific personal‑jurisdiction doctrine (stream‑of‑commerce‑plus for purposeful availment and a relatedness inquiry) and relied on evidence of shipments into Texas and that the injury arose from the same model battery defendants sold into the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident battery manufacturers whose product injured a Texas resident | Morgan: defendants purposefully availed by selling/distributing the same 18650 battery into Texas and his injury arises from those contacts | LG Chem: they served industrial manufacturers, not consumer e‑cigarette market; plaintiff falls outside intended market so claims not related | Held: Specific jurisdiction exists; selling the same model battery into Texas suffices for relatedness and due process |
| Whether relatedness requires that the plaintiff be within the market segment the defendant intended to serve | Morgan: no strict market‑segment match required; product serving Texas market and malfunctioning here is enough (per Ford) | LG Chem: relatedness requires defendant’s expectation that product reach consumer users like Morgan | Held: Rejected segmentation; relatedness does not require the plaintiff to be in defendant’s intended submarket |
| Whether defendants had constitutionally adequate notice they could be haled into Texas court | Morgan: marketing/sales into Texas gave defendants fair warning | LG Chem: lacked clear notice because they did not target consumer market; unfair to subject them to suits by end users outside intended chain | Held: Clear notice exists when a company serves a State’s market for a product and that product malfunctions there; due process satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum‑contacts/due process framework)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (relatedness satisfied when company serves a market and product malfunctions there)
- Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, 625 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.) (Texas application of stream‑of‑commerce‑plus; relatedness to forum market sufficient)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex.) (purposeful availment and relatedness framework)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (plurality) (stream‑of‑commerce discussion)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (fair‑warning rationale)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (fair‑warning/notice principles)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (purposeful availment requirement)